During those halcyon days of the original Pontifications blog (RIP), Fr Al Kimel posted a fascinating text by Louis Bouyer, arguing (if I recall correctly) that the division between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches doesn’t correspond to any classic theological definition of schism.
I believe it was an excerpt from Bouyer’s The Church of God. I could track down a copy of the book, of course, but I was hoping a kind reader of the blog could send me the text electronically.
And I would be ecstatic if someone has the Pontifications responses to the article, by Dr Bill Tighe, Fr Stephen Freeman, and James Likoudis. I would be absolutely over the moon if someone, somewhere, has the related combox discussions.
UPDATE: Found the Bouyer text and original combox via archive.org; looking for the responses.
Eirenikon 
Please let me know if you find the responses; I well remember the exchanges on the comment thread, but I never saved them.
I recall the post, but I don’t think Likoudis ever participated in that thread or really any others. Second, Tighe or Kimel I could see why their comments would be worthwhile, but Likoudis has no special competence in theology or a related field.
I found the responses as well. I had forgotten that most of Dr Tighe’s response can be found at Cathedra Unitatis under the title “Dating the Schism”.
Likoudis’s response can be found on his website.
Fr Freeman’s can be recovered through the Internet Wayback Machine.
Can you provide links to the wayback machine for those of us who are curious?
Nathaniel,
The Wayback Machine is here:
http://www.archive.org/web/web.php
I know where the wayback machine is. :)
In particular, for those of us trying to reconstruct the conversation after the fact, we’re still missing links to the original article and Fr. Freeman’s response.
Oh, I see. :-) Try these:
Original post including combox:
http://web.archive.org/web/20070114153848/http://catholica.pontifications.net/?p=1559
Fr Freeman’s response:
http://web.archive.org/web/20060510221533/catholica.pontifications.net/?p=1564
Leave it to Mr. Robinson to attack Likoudis at any opportunity.
Agreed. A pretty blatant ad hominem if I’ve ever seen one. How sad, especially for an academic of Perry’s calibre. I seem to recall some rhetoric over at Energetic Procession about the ad hominem tactic as a “Gnostic prohibition of questions.”
Dr Tighe’s response:
http://web.archive.org/web/20070113220249/catholica.pontifications.net/?p=1560
Rusty and Irenaeus,
I believe I stated facts. If you disagree with the facts, then please give me a reason to think I am mistaken.
Second, I didn’t make an ad hominem since I didn’t speak to the truth or falsity of Likoudis arguments, but to the question of professional competence. Laymen in a given field can put forward good arguments, but they are not as reliable as expert testimony. If you disagree, please correct me.
Mr. Robinson,
What you’ve described is your own situation as well.
Evagrius,
I suppose I am at a loss since I do think that I have professional competence in a relevant field, philosophy with a concentration in metaphysics and epistemology, specifically that of Late Antiquity and the medieval period.
You don’t have a Ph.D do you?
I have a Master’s in theology also and a B.A. in philosophy. Big deal.
Quite a few people commenting here have even more academic qualifications. None seem to take them that seriously.
Don’t take yourself so seriously.
Evagrius, are you saying that graduate studies and completion thereof by accredited institutions provide no additional value? While I am sure that there are specious programs of studies and institutions of idiocy, in the main I have found even the slightest bit of rigour and discipline, to say nothing of a full-throated PhD requiring a boisterous defense, does provide for more than than your average laymen on his own.
But, as I never undertook those studies and so cannot speak first hand, perhaps my money was indeed well-saved. What say you?
I don’t disagree with your argument at all. I was responding to Mr. Robinson’s claim of “intellectual superiority” which isn’t borne out by any facts.
Theology is a peculiar intellectual discipline. The “modern” approach, ( sometimes called the “western” approach ), is to reduce theology to a series of propositions, based on arguments founded on either “logic”, ( the usual Aristotelian or, sometimes, the more convoluted “modern” symbolic logic), or arguments found in passages from the “Fathers”, i;e, the patristic heritage, or based on passages from the Scriptures. This reduces theology almost to a form of archeological anthropology.
But theology, real theology, is not that. It’s a discipline that requires first, a deep inward reflection on the human experience of the Sacred, that is, one’s own experience of the Sacred, and from that, how one’s reflection of that experience, no matter how small or trivial, has meaning for everyone else. The communication of that experience requires some knowledge of the past, ( how that experience was reflected upon by previous generations) and this is where the “intellectual discipline” of academia comes into play.
These days, however, what has occured is that theology is reduced to just the portion called “intellectual discipline”. The portion requiring deep inward reflection is dismissed as being “subjective” and not valuable since it cannot be replicated.
This is a “problem” that has been recognized by many. The “solution” is to somehow make the “experience” of the Sacred more available. However, the present situation is to try to limit this “experience” to only monastics or those “special people” that God has chosen.
This seems to be, outside of efforts like the “Centering Prayer” movement in the RC Church, the accepted approach of most churches.
Mr. Robinson’s emphasis on his “intellectual credentials” follows this same “modern” approach. Since he follows this approach, I do not give him any more credibility than I do Mr. Likoudis. That is, I will examine their arguments from a “logical” standpoint rather rom any other standpoint.
Mr. Robinson has not evinced any inkling of “experience”. This would be shown through an expression of “humility”, ( perhaps self-deprecetating humor).
Therefore, his statements and arguments should be examined carefully, just as everyone else’s on this blog.
Evagrius,
Since my remarks were relative to the credentials of Dr. Tighe in particular, my credentials aren’t relevant to my argument. In any case, my degrees are in philosophy and I was in a PhD program and forced to quit through no fault of my own. I am essentially ABD. So again, please read my original comments as they were not directed to my own credentials, but that of others.
Since blog comment boxes are not the place for “real theology” what is relevant then is the reliability and cogency of arguments put forward and in this particular case, those of Mr. Likoudis. Logic is what matters then here. There is nothing else we can evaluate. Given his credentials, he isn’t a comparable reliable guide.
I could see why someone would wish to read comments from Dr. Tighe for example. His views and arguments are worthwhile. He and I have a good many disagreements, but I respect his position. It is well thought out, informed and clearly articulated. After reading a good dose of the literature from Mr. Likoudis, it lacks a significant amount of the requisite philosophical, theological and historical material and form to really amount to worthwhile reading. I say this of material on both sides whether the person is Catholic or Orthodox. I’ve said as much about particular Orthodox authors, whether they be Mrs. Matthews-Green, Carlton or someone else. And I’ll continue to say so since I evaluate material based on its own virtues and not the position it advocates.
Your remarks on the “sacred” also bring up and at the same time mask your own particular non-Christian mystical outlook. That doesn’t of itself imply that it is false, but it is beyond the pale of what traditional Orthodoxism, Catholicism, or Protestantism would recognize as its own. If my background is relevant, readers should be cognizant of yours as well. As such I would not lay claim to the kind of “experience” you speak of. And for my own good, I generally do not speak to anyone about any possible religious experiences I might have had.
Like my sex life with my wife, they are no one elses’ business. They would only possibly harm me or others by inflating pride or move us to speculate in areas where we should not go. And further, I am altogether skeptical of claims of religious experience especially my own. I accept those that the Church has accepted and beyond that I am not moved to take many others as credible. Nor would a positive or negative doxastic disposition relative to them mean anything in relation to the Christian Faith. They are simply idle for me. Those outside of Christianity are in an even worse epistemic position.
That said, I was not aware that this combox was the place for spiritual evaluation or that you were a member in good standing, clergy or lay in a Catholic, Orthodox or any other professing Christian body such as would entitle you to put me on the couch or rather in the confessional as it were. To my knowledge you aren’t a member in either Christian body. I would think sitting in judgment on me would require not only informing me that I was to be judged so, and by you, but the possession of the humility you seem to think I am grossly lacking.
To wax Stoic for a moment, it is quite true that I am an arrogant man, but I have far worse vices and if you had really known me, I should have no doubt that you would have brought them to light as well. In any case, I’ll kindly direct you to consider my arguments and leave personal evaluations out of the conversation. Since that has yet to be done, my original point stands untouched.
You do take yourself quite seriously, don’t you?
Now that I’ve had time to sleep on it ,as it were, I feel I can respond to your statements.
You do take yourself seriously, in fact too seriously.
Your response to my description of what I think the role theology is not to argue with logic but to accuse me of holding a non-Christian mystical outlook.
In response- a quote from your own blog, ( remember- you have banned me from discussions on your blog) from
Andrea Elizabeth quoting St. Maximus;
The Scriptural Word knows of two kinds of knowledge of divine things. On the one hand there is relative knowledge, rooted only in reason and concepts and lacking in the kind of experiental perception of what one knows through active engagement; such relative knowledge is what we use to order our affairs in this present life. On the other hand there is that truly authentic knowledge, gained only by actual experience, apart from reason or concepts, which provide a total perception of the known object through a participation by grace”.
To continue, ( my computer went mute for some reason).
It seems to me that Maximos’ statement comes very close to Mahayana Buddhist views on the two truths, relative and absolute.
Amazing that a Christian can sound like a Buddhist!
( Actually, there are some interesting parallels between Maximus and Buddhism; see the following reference;
http://www.gorgiaspress.com/bookshop/pc-56194-93-cattoi-thomas-divine-contingency-theologies-of-divine-embodiment-in-maximos-the-confessor-and-tsong-kha-pa.aspx)
As for your views on “experience”, I’m puzzled. After all, the current cliche among many Orthodox apologists is that Orthodox emphasize “theosis” while other Christians do not. Isn’t “theosis” the everyday life of the ordinary Christian as well as the monastic? That is, that it’s the struggle to overcome sin and practice virtue? It’s that “experience” I’m pointing, not the special illumination that certain personages have received.
As for your thinking that I was making remarks on your “personal life” or making a “spiritual evaluation” of you, I think you are mistaken. You seem to have this peculiar notion that questioning your arguments or approach is a “personal attack”.
I was commenting on your “intellectual style” and how, from examination, it lacks that certain je ne sais quoi that distinguishes someone with something truly valuable to state from someone blabbering on, ( like myself), and yet it pretends to have depth, profundity and knowledge, ( see your remarks on Likoudis for reference and proof), despite being quite ordinary once one gets past the fancy vocabulary, ( doxastic, epistemic) .
As I wrote, most here do not take ourselves that seriously or pompously.
I feel like this thread is getting a bit personal. Comments are closed.