Just discovered this blog: Pontifications. A recent entry entitled Why Not Eastern Orthodoxy? has garnered quite a reputation, esp. with its 412 (!) comments. It will take me a long while to wade through it all, and I haven’t that time at the moment (if ever). But I thought I’d have a look at this Anglican author’s two main reasons for choosing Catholicism over Orthodoxy. Here’s an excerpt. Read the whole thing at the link above.

Ironically, the various contributions by Perry Robinson and Daniel Jones, here on Pontifications and elsewhere, have heightened my concern. Both have sought, in various ways, to demonstrate that Western theology is incompatible with the catholic faith. While I have neither the training nor wit to follow many of their arguments, I am convinced that their project is wrong. Both presume that one can know the catholic faith independent of ecclesial commitment and formation. If one insists, for example, that St Maximos the Confessor, read through a post-schism Eastern lens, is our authoritative guide to a proper reading of the sixth Ecumenical Council, then of course Augustinian Catholicism will come off looking badly, despite the fact that Maximos was himself a great supporter of the prerogatives of Rome and despite the fact that Rome was instrumental in the defeat of monotheletism. Yet Catholicism embraces both Augustine and Maximos as saints, even though it is clear that Maximos has had minimal influence upon Western reflection, at least until very recently. Clearly Rome did not, and does not, understand the dogmatic decrees of III Constantinople as contradicting Western christological and trinitarian commitments. As much as I respect Perry and Daniel and am grateful for both their erudition and civility and their stimulating articles on these matters, it seems to me that their conclusions are more determined by their theological and ecclesial starting points than by “neutral” scholarship. And one thing I do know: there is always a brighter guy somewhere who will contest one’s favorite thesis.

One thing right off the bat. The main argument here is apparently self-contradictory. “I am convinced that their project is wrong. Both presume that one can know the catholic faith independent of ecclesial commitment and formation.” The criticism appears to be that they’re too rationalistic, too “independent”. But the conclusion is: “it seems to me that their conclusions are more determined by their theological and ecclesial starting points than by ‘neutral’ scholarship.” Huh? Now he wants neutral scholarship. When do you use reason? When do you use authorities? Which authorities? Are you working out of a prior commitment (of value, of authority, of belief)? Or are you trying to figure out who your authority IS or ought to be in the first place (in which case you have no choice but to be “independent” and try to judge)?

It strikes me that most Orthodox that I have read or discussed with are always committed to Holy Tradition, which is understood to be the lives and teachings of the saints and Fathers of the Church, including biblical saints, all the pre-schism Fathers, as well as all the saints who lived in later centuries up until the present. Now, no Father can be an authority unto himself, whether Augustine, Palamas, or a 20th c. Orthodox writer. It is the Tradition as a whole that judges. (Actually, as someone pointed out to me yesterday, it is God who judges. But the only way we have of knowing God’s judgments in this life is through reliance on Holy Tradition as a guide.)

But what is Tradition as a whole if there have been historical judgments within the Tradition that seem to cut off part of it as not-entirely-Traditional? Catholics accept post-schism Orthodox saints (except maybe the ones who have rejected Catholicism?), but Orthodox exclude certain western saints (venerated in the west) as not-entirely-Traditional. On the Catholic side there is a “big tent” presumption. As long as a saint is venerated in either Catholicism or Orthodoxy, he or she is “in”. Decisions of inclusion are based on… what? history? tradition (small “t”)? a general preference for inclusivity? popularity? geography? communion with an accepted ecclesial body predetermined to be acceptable? In any case it’s a formal condition. (One wrestles with substance later.) The Orthodox test for inclusion, on the other hand, is not formal, but substantive. What did the person in question actually teach? Are their writings orthodox? Are they edifying? Are they true? — However… the Orthodox discernment process about substance will have to invoke the standards (beliefs, teachings) of… Tradition, of course, which must already have been determined as to who are its reliable sources and who is potentially questionable (i.e. the ones de facto being questioned). And that presupposition must be, at least in part, formal. There’s a preference for eastern Fathers, eastern saints, those who are found in post-schism Orthodoxy, not Catholicism.

Neither Orthodoxy nor Catholicism, in my judgment, can be conclusively identified as the one and true Church by these kinds of rational arguments, as interesting and important as they may be in themselves. Arguments and reasons must be presented and considered as we seek to make the necessary choice between Rome and Constantinople, yet ultimately we are still confronted by mystery and the decision and risk of faith.

I think he’s fundamentally right about this.

I prefer substantive evaluation to a merely formal acceptance (what formal criterion would you use?), but at the same time, substantive evaluation relies on reason and argument, and on standards and values to plug into reason and argument that have already come from predetermined Tradition — which already requires a commitment one way or the other. The situation is ultimately circular. The hand of God must nudge us onto the right circular track.

Another part of the case was made (see the full entry) by citing our friend David Hart, who criticizes Orthodox misunderstandings of western saints. For what it’s worth, I think the criticism is accurate enough. Orthodox writers, even the best of them, do not fully understand the west. There are indeed misconceptions. That doesn’t mean a rejection is necessarily wrong.

If the catholicity of Orthodoxy can only be purchased by the practical expulsion of Augustine and Aquinas, then, at least in my own mind, Orthodoxy’s claim to be the one and true Church is seriously undermined. A truly catholic Church will and must include St Augustine and St Maximos the Confessor, St Gregory Palamas and St Thomas Aquinas. A truly catholic Church will keep these great theologians in conversation with each other, and their differences and disagreements will invite the Church to a deeper and more comprehensive understanding of the divine mysteries. To set one against the other is not catholic, but partisan.

I entirely agree with the principle here, that is, to keep the Fathers (great theologians) in conversation with each other. They do have differences, and a consideration of them will lead to a deeper and more comprehensive understanding. (The most comprehensive understanding of the divine mysteries will have nothing whatsoever to do with any kind of juxtapositional “study” of anyone.) Whatever their shortcomings, Orthodox thinkers, focused on substance, are having this conversation, a darn lively one. Catholicism, in its big, all-accepting, non-judgmental, “catholic” tent, is not. Or not on any level that could ever potentially reject a wrong teaching or give guidance as to who might be right and who wrong — and hence where to go to find the Church when there is de facto schism. With Catholicism, all teachings in the historical tradition (small t) are automatically included, assumed to be OK, automatically made part of the very standard of judgment. The only point of a Catholic-style conversation, then, would be to try to “understand better” — if such a thing is even possible under such non-discerning conditions.

Note the added bonus: as part of the big tent package, only schism itself ever becomes heresy.

It is not at all surprising that Mr. Pontifications goes on to his second reason for “Why Not Orthodoxy?”