Orthodoxy is Well-Placed to Stabilise

Thanks to Jim for this on the culture of the family.

As Jim also blogs, Fr. Joseph is putting up an article from Aidan Nichols OP entitled, A Catholic View of Eastern Orthodoxy. From Part 1:

This brings me to my third reason for advocating ecumenical rapport with Orthodoxy: its practical advantages. At the present time, the Catholic Church, in many parts of the world, is undergoing one of the most serious crises in its history, a crisis resulting from a disorienting encounter with secular culture and compounded by a failure of Christian discernment on the part of many people over the last quarter century - from the highest office holders - to the ordinary faithful. This crisis touches many aspects of Church life but notably theology and catechesis, liturgy and spirituality, Religious life and Christian ethics at large. Orthodoxy is well placed to stabilise Catholicism in most if not all of these areas.

At first it sounds like Fr. Aidan will not address the “practical” reasons for Catholics to regard Orthodox as their “ecumenical partner par excellence”. But I’m glad he does take it up.

Even better are the details:

Were we to ask in a simply empirical or phenomenological frame of mind just what the Orthodox Church is like, we could describe it as a dogmatic Church, a liturgical Church, a contemplative Church, and a monastic Church - and in all these respects it furnishes a helpful counter-balance to certain features of much western Catholicism today.

Firstly, then, Orthodoxy is a dogmatic Church. It lives from out of the fullness of the truth impressed by the Spirit on the minds of the apostles at the first Pentecost, a fullness which transformed their awareness and made possible that specifically Christian kind of thinking we call dogmatic thought.

The Holy Trinity, the God-man, the Mother of God and the saints, the Church as the mystery of the Kingdom expressed in a common life on earth, the sacraments as means to humanity’s deification - our participation in the uncreated life of God himself: these are the truths among which the Orthodox live, move and have their being.

As to the problem of the renewal of our minds, that looming educational and cultural question:

Orthodox theology in all its forms is a call to the renewal of our minds in Christ, something which finds its measure not in pure reason or secular culture but in the apostolic preaching attested to by the holy Fathers, in accord with the principal dogmata of faith as summed up in the Ecumenical Councils of the Church.

Read the rest of Part 1 here.

Hopefully I can get back to Dawson some more later. That paper keeps weighing on me.

Sensitive Issues

A personal note from someone reminded me what a sensitive issue Catholic/Orthodox relations are. How well I understand that myself. My husband and four children (flesh of my flesh) are Catholic, as was I for many years from the time of my marriage until my conversion to Orthodoxy. There are NO easy answers, and all over this issue the devil has built himself a magnificent playground complete with demonic slides, swingsets, and jungle gyms.

For the time being I’ll let my recent blog entries stay, but I deeply and sincerely apologize for any hurt they may cause to anyone who reads them. This goes especially for anything I have said that is wrong or only an inadequate, partial truth (which describes everything I write).

As an immediate follow-up, I’ll list three important caveats.

First, as to the issue of judgment “then and now”, there is of course a vast difference between, on the one hand, pronouncing for or against the doctrinal teachings of holy men and women (then) and, on the other hand, passing pastoral judgment on the flagrant moral decrepitude of modern society (now). Taking on St. Augustine or St. Thomas is not the same at all as taking on gay marriage and abortion!!

Second, just because a saint may have some problems, that doesn’t mean he’s not a saint — a holy person who knows God and is especially beloved by Him. From what I know of St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas (and many other western saints), they were amazing, holy people, dedicated and loyal servants of the Church, teachers, preachers, men of fervent prayer. Whether or not every saint deserves to be a “doctor” of the Church (to put it in Catholic parlance) is perhaps the real question that needs to be asked where there is major doctrinal controversy (which there is, in the case of these two saints).

Third, as my husband reminds me, if you believe “Christ is on that altar” (that altar over there), then to break communion with that church is to break communion with Christ, to refuse Him. To deny that Christ is on that altar over there is worse. It is terribly serious business, business that none of us mere humans should IMHO ever take on. Christ can be wherever He wants to be to minister to those who seek Him and who trust in Him — no matter what their faults or sins. Every single one of us counts on His mercy every single day of our lives for our own salvation. If we deny Him to others, woe to us, for we may in the same breath deny Him to ourselves.

I have some other ideas I’ll try to write up in a separate entry.

Final Court of Appeal

Continuing with the second reason for “Why Not Orthodoxy?”.

Second, I am troubled by the absence of a final court of appeal in controversies of faith and morals. We Anglicans are now witnessing first-hand the disintegration of a world-wide communion partially because of the absence of a divinely instituted organ of central authority. In the first millenium the Church employed the Ecumenical Council to serve as this final authority; but for the past thirteen centuries Orthodoxy has been unable to convene such a council. Is it a matter of logistics, or is the matter perhaps more serious, a question of constitutional impotence? Or has God simply protected the Orthodox from serious church-dividing heresies during this time, thereby temporarily obviating the need for such a council? Regardless, it seems to me that if Orthodoxy truly is the one Church of Jesus Christ in the exclusive sense it claims to be, then not only would it be confident in its power and authority to convene an Ecumenical Council, but it would have done so by now.

Yet as Orthodoxy begins to seriously engage the worldview and values of modernity (and post-modernity), the need for a final tribunal will perhaps become more evident. Consider just one example—contraception. It used to be the case that all Orthodox theologians would have roundly denounced most (all?) forms of contraception. But over the past twenty years or so, we have seen a growing diversity on this issue amongst Orthodox thinkers. Some state that this is really a private matter that needs to be decided between the believer and his parish priest. Clearly this privatization of the issue accords with modern sensibilities; but I am fearful of the consequences. Given the absence of a final court of appeal, does Orthodoxy have any choice but to simply accept diversity on many of the burning ethical questions now confronting us? Can Orthodoxy speak authoritatively to any of them?

Now there is no longer a desire for openness to all the saints and for conversation between all the historically great theologians. Now, in the face of the uncertianties of modernity, there is a demand for a “final court of appeal”. Now we must get judgmental. Now we must get things decided. Toe the line! Root out the bad guys! Get after those heretics! Studying the past can afford a neutral academic exchange. Action in the present calls for decisiveness.

No, this can’t be right! Surely the Church ought to remain consistent in its attitude and method both historically and in the present. It can either stand back, take an entirely neutral stance, discuss issues this way and that — both then and now — OR it can jump into the fray, make its decisions, stand by them, and assert its authority — both then and now. Or of course it can do something in the middle, which is to try to listen, learn, discuss, pray, study, pray some more, and, going with “what seems good to the Holy Spirit and to us”, make the call. (And be ready to be judged by those in the future who will do the same.) In any case, the Church should do what does — be what it is — both then and now. No double standard.

Big Tent

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?”

Christ on the Altar

I am feeling the need to take up again questions of Catholicism and Orthodoxy. I understand there’s a new blog out there (or a newly advertised one). I haven’t explored it yet, and I’m somewhat skeptical; Catholic/Orthodox dialogue is tough, even with the best intentions. I also discovered this old essay by Hart (yes, Hart again) regarding the pope. It’s pretty good. I am told, though, that the ecclesiastical issue is whether Christ is there on that altar. If He is, then there should be — in fact, there IS — unity, whether we sinful humans recognize it, or submit to it, or not.

Given that I don’t believe Christ abandons anyone, and certainly not those who profess to seek Him, then I’m inclined to believe He IS where believers see(k) Him to be. And yet, what about historical schism, heresy, and all kinds of “breaks in communion” between the churches? It seems possible that even heretics seek Christ. They merely seek Him wrongly in some fashion. Is “breaking communion” — when Christ is really there on that altar — a proper form of discipline or “protest”?

Good questions, to which I do not have adequate answers.

Immaculate Conception

In response to a question about the Catholic doctrine ~

I have heard that some Orthodox don’t really mind the IC, it’s just that they wouldn’t dogmatize about it. Others think it is not correct, and yes, I think their views are based on the differing notions of original sin. For a Catholic, it would not be fitting that the divinity of God should unite with the flesh of some ‘stained’ (or sinful or guilty or whatever) human being. The purity of Mary is paramount because of who she would become. (We Orthodox can understand this, I think.) But the flip side would be that Christ has to take on everything in human nature that needs to be healed, so if Mary is somehow special or different from the rest of us humans, then Christ hasn’t really taken on OUR humanity.

My own personal view (could be wrong!) is that what was ‘special’ about Mary was her willingness. Her whole life she was incredibly open to God. Part of this was her beautiful personality (not a special human nature, or a special physical conception), and part was that she stood directly and faithfully in a long, holy tradition of all God’s past history of salvation as it came through the Jewish people — represented immediately by her family, parents, and close community. God was waiting for just such a person, from whom he could “take flesh”. SHE had to be faithful and willing. There had to be a human being who would be THAT open — just consider what happened in her womb! But her human nature, as such, was not different from the rest of us. Nor, really, was the possibility of her human choice and willingness. Aren’t we called to the same? When Christ becomes incarnate in her, THAT is when all of human nature — including hers, as she was totally open and willing, synergistically willing, we’d call it — was healed, or was reconnected with God and set on a path of ultimate healing, including even the healing of mortality and death itself. The ultimate moment in Mary’s life was the Incarnation. Hence the importance of the feasts of Annunciation, and Nativity — which we draw close to! This reconnection between God and humanity, in a willing person, is why Christ can be resurrected from the dead, and why Mary has a special Assumption/Dormition (regardless of whether we believe she actually died or not). Since she was not God by nature, and since she does not have a “special nature” different from the rest of us (I don’t think Catholics believe she does - they are coming at it from a different angle - but I understand this is the potentially sticky point), she is a model for us — as is Christ Himself, of course.

On a more practical level, the doctrine of the IC was around for a long time in the west, long, long before it ever became official dogma (only in the 1850’s, as the pope’s first “infallible” declaration?). It was also somewhat controversial; I believe St. Thomas Aquinas, and a few other major theologians, were opposed to it. Nick [my dh] thinks the reason for the official promulgation from a practical point of view was to affirm the importance and holiness of Mary against the Protestants who had been so demeaning (even desecrating) to her throughout the Reformation. (I do think Orthodox need to give more weight to the western Church’s needs, over time, to defend herself against the various heresies that popped up in the west. — I’m not saying such consideration explains/justifies everything the RCC has done, just that it seems good to take it into account.) Devout Catholics see a “confirmation” of the IC dogma in the miracle of Bernadette of Lourdes. The Lady who appeared to Bernadette said, “I am the Immaculate Conception.”