I wrote this a couple of days ago and have been hesitating about posting it as I’m not sure that I express things adequately, and I don’t want to offend people. But I can’t help thinking that there are things that need to be said… and if I don’t post it now it will be too old.
Since posting on this topic before, which was really an attempt to draw attention to a dialogue Deacon Stephen was trying to get underway at Thandanani, I have been wondering how and whether I should say anything more, and I suppose that this post is really an attempt to get my thoughts together. The Thandanani discussion has been pretty much limited to Deacon Stephen and me and we seem to more or less agree with each other, which is very nice but doesn’t really take things further. I’ve also followed some recent Eirenikon discussions, and participated a bit, but realised that I was quite uncomfortable with that in a way that I couldn’t properly articulate. What was presented was worthwhile, but I could not help but feel that there was an underlying dynamic with the discussion that I was not comfortable with. More recently I have been struck by an interview with Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon which Father Milovan Katanic posted and by a post on Orthodox hostility to Catholicism by Father Gregory Jensen.
Now, as I said, I’m not sure that I should be getting involved in such discussions – apart from the fact that I’m even less than a neophyte, I probably have other things that I should be attending to. But because of the space that I have been in in the last couple of years, I have become aware that there is much that is left unspoken in the ways in which Orthodox and Catholics relate to one another, and that it is perhaps especially this unspoken layer that needs to be brought to light.
In a comment on my earlier post, Mary Lanser posted a quote from Cardinal Walter Kasper in which he called for grass roots spiritual ecumenism. It is not enough for official dialogues to take place between theologians and hierarchs, but it also has to take place on the grassroots level. This is clearly important but it also points for me to the importance of praxis. It is not enough for grassroots initiatives to enable Orthodox and Catholics to be polite to one another, to think that they are all the same anyway, except that the Orthodox are more exotic, and that all that they have to do is wait for the theologians and hierarchs to find a way around the filioque and the pope. Instead the theological divisions manifest themselves at the level of popular practice. Deacon Stephen had given an example of the use of icons by some western Christians and in a post at Thandanani I gave an example of Catholics not being able to understand why Orthodox should have a problem participating in a Blessed Sacrament procession. After writing that I happened to come across a Catholic news report describing the procession which paid particular attention to the fact that the Syrian Orthodox had joined in and from the tone of the article it was as if this somehow gave legitimacy to the whole thing. And I was left thinking: “They just don’t get it!”
In his earlier post Deacon Stephen argued that the “different culture and ethos” that separates Orthodox and Catholics is “just as much theology as the kind of theology that is written in books.” In his post at Thandanani he picked up on my quote from Father Alexander Schmemann that the original sin of the entire western theological tradition is that it made texts the loci theologica of the entire theological enterprise. I have also been reminded of David Fagerberg’s point in that same lecture that “people do theology with their knees.” I was reminded of this while reading some of the discussion at Eirenikon because I often had the sense there that dialogue was about resolving certain basic theoretical things – and, depending on the circles one is in, that either looks more or less likely – but that that was somehow separate from how people live their faith. In one of the discussions at Eirenikon, when the topic of iconoclasm arose someone asserted that one need not actually expect people to venerate icons but just to accept the legitimacy of other people doing so. Now, I am not going to go around calling people heretics if they don’t venerate icons – God knows that I had to jump over a certain threshold before I could do it, and I’m probably still somewhat minimalist when it comes to some of this kissing stuff – but I also can’t say that it doesn’t matter what we do as long as we agree on paper. Theology is embodied and ritual action reaches us at a level that cerebral reasoning cannot get to. It is a text, as Ricoeur would say.
I certainly don’t deny that there are Orthodox who operate at this abstract level – especially, it would appear, among internet polemicists. But from my perspective there seems to be an almost build in Catholic inability to see beyond the framework of its own perspectives. And this is not just Catholic and theological but I suspect that it is also western and cultural, although that plays out differently in different contexts. Indeed it seems to be something that both “conservative” and “progressive” Catholics have in common and points to an underlying and sometimes subtle form of imperialism and power dynamics.
In the interview posted by Father Milovan, Metropolitan John Zizioulas argued that Orthodox opponents of ecumenism need to appreciate that the Catholic Church has changed in her attitudes to the Orthodox and no longer seeks to dominate them. While Catholic attitudes to Orthodoxy clearly have changed, I think that we may legitimately ask to what extent this has simply involved a mutation into something more subtle, and I suspect that some of the Orthodox hostility to Catholicism and rejection of ecumenical dialogue has its roots in this less-than-entirely-clear and certainly not-always-rational territory. I don’t think this justifies a rejection of dialogue, but until such dynamics are brought to light, I can’t really see it getting anywhere.
Last year I was struck by a letter by Father Alexander Schmemann which he wrote to an Anglican friend on the topic of the ordination of women. He wrote:
The debate on women’s ordination reveals something we suspected for a long time, but which now is confirmed beyond any doubt: the truly built-in indifference of the Christian West to anything beyond the sphere of its own problematics, of its own experience. I can only repeat here what I have said before: even the so-called ‘ecumenical movement’, notwithstanding its claims to the contrary, has always been and still is a purely Western phenomenon, based on Western presuppositions and determined by a specifically Western ‘agenda’. This is not ‘pride’ or ‘arrogance’. On the contrary the Christian West is almost obsessed with a guilt complex, and enjoys nothing better than self-criticism and self-condemnation. It is plagued with a total inability to transcend itself, to accept the simple idea that its own experience, problems, thought forms and priorities may not be universal, that it may need to be evaluated and judged in the light of a truly universal, truly ‘catholic’ experience.” (Sourozh, 17, August 1984, 8).
I was struck by this, not because of anything to do with the ordination of women, but because it resonated with my experience of trying to communicate with Catholics (and other western Christians) who appeared to be just unable to see beyond their own concerns and quite indifferent to how their actions would appear to others. They wanted to be on good terms with the Orthodox, and indeed were almost bullying in their expectation that the Orthodox should be on good terms with them, but without being prepared to acknowledge that this would demand something of them. And something similar happens at an official level, when the pope appeals for unity and yet continues to issue documents that are decidedly problematic from an Orthodox perspective.
In this context it seems to me that we need to be looking at the more subtle dynamics of power and of how this influences our perceptions. And to what it really is that Catholics, and other western Christians, want from the Orthodox Church.
A vow of conversation 
July 17, 2010 at 5:58 pm
I just read a note from a poster on an Orthodox forum which indicated that until “the west” meaning Catholics, speak word for word as the Orthodox speak, venerate what the Orthodox venerate, teach doctrine as the Orthodox teach doctrine, share the same liturgy and devotions, and spend time in humble and public penitence…there would never be acceptance of them from the Orthodox.
Now you may say that is a tad extreme. I don’t find it so in my experiences and even your note here tilts more than a little in that direction whether you see it yet or not…
So in that spirit can you tell me what “universal” Catholicism is?
As a cradle Latin rite Catholic, Byzantine Catholic transfer who has been formed in a monastic spirit both formally and through the work of a spiritual father, and who has never been much for any western devotional practices and who has spent the last 10 year with most of my liturgical life in an Orthodox parish…I am very curious to know what this “universal” catholic person would look like down here on the ground next to me?
I am smiling as I write this so please relax if anything I’ve said has caused any tension at all. It is an issue near and dear to me that you raise and it MUST be handled carefully on both sides.
Mary
July 18, 2010 at 3:48 pm
Mary, I agree that this must be handled carefully on both sides.
I’m not saying that everyone has to speak word for word the same word etc and it is not so evident for me where we draw the line and in any case that is not for me to decide. But the reason I wrote this was precisely to draw attention to this “murky” area that I suspect influences our reactions more than we realise but which is not normally expressed.
And so, no, I cannot tell you what an abstracted “universal” catholic person would look like, because we are nowhere near to knowing that and in any case such people do not exist. But I would say that it implies a willingness to be open to criticism and to interogating oneself whether what one proclaims and lives is in keeping with the tradition that was once common.
Forgive me if this is out of place, but as you describe yourself, I can’t help wondering how representative you are of the Catholic Church?! I say that partly because (although I suspect we are very different) I often found myself reacting to what I saw as a misrepresentation of Catholicism – until I finally realised that I was in a very small minority and those around me, perhaps with good reason, perhaps not, did not recognise what I was saying as Catholic. It probably is a very different situation, but…
July 18, 2010 at 4:44 pm
It is very funny to see my physical reaction to this topic. For the first time in my experience on the Internet I feel hemmed in. There’s something inside of me that wants to reach out and sweep all the clutter off this “big desk” [Church] and start with a bare surface upon which we can being to describe ourselves to each other. Very interesting!!
We are different in experience and different in perception. What makes you and I similar is an ineffable understanding of the essentials of the faith and a deep deep desire…almost a wounding…to protect those essentials and to share them with others to the best of our ability.
I know that I am representative of the Church. I do not know whether or not I am representative of all of her members. In fact I know that I am not or I’d not take such a beating at the ecumenical table from both sides!!
But I do know, from my formation in the faith and as a daughter of the Church, that I do not do too badly in representing the gospels and the teachings of the Church and now and then I speak to people in forums where I can make the connection between gospel faith and doctrine.
That is where we need to go to find “the Church”…at that nexus between doctrine and revelation.
How we as individuals and members of local communities look, feel, sound, smell and taste…even how we express beauty…are never going to be identical with others who express the same reality of our faith.
Am I making any sense?
M.
July 17, 2010 at 6:51 pm
I value your thoughts here Macrina.
Once I talked to a hieromonk who was originally Eastern Catholic and is now Orthodox and he hinted at the cultural differences between the two and that there are things Catholics don’t understand about why Orthodox don’t want to share like they want to share with them and that their missing this was in part based on their own culture and was not, in this way, a overtly mean thing of them to do but something they were blind to by being where and who (culturally) they are. Or at least that is what I understood him to say. I do believe I need to ask him more about this.
Was reading part of an essay on by Schmemann in Vol. 3 of the _Celebration of Faith_ series, “On Mariology in Orthodoxy” which does not touch directly on your question but in which he does mention differences between Catholic and Orthodox understanding regarding Mary; it seems that Orthodox are seen as more organic or holistic and, from what I gather in the first pages of this essay, Catholics have somehow separated Mary into a category that comes with problems. Somehow it seems to speak of the sense I get of a cultural difference, if that makes any sense. As in the Catholic church seems to have built a very structured approach to things and Orthodox have not…
I do think that some of the reactions of Orthodox to the West (at least in converts, of whom I am one) is based somewhat on the emotional level. It is complicated to say the least.
I am still wondering what both sides want from a dialouge; none of this is simple…
July 18, 2010 at 3:58 pm
Elizabeth, I agree that culture is very important, but also that it’s often not at all clear how that works.
One of the things that I have realised living in a foreign country is how much I previously took for granted about culture, and also, because I was in a “dominant” group (a western-educated white South African) I actually didn’t want acknowledge what people from less dominant backgrounds said about culture. Being a foreigner, and interacting in a language that I’m not perfectly fluent in, has taught me a lot about the power dynamics involved in which voices we do and don’t listent to. And, as a non-European in Europe (and one who doesn’t look any different from Europeans which means that people speak more openly in my presence than they would if I were black) I have learnt something of the subtelty of western arrogance.
While the theological issues are of course present, I think that this cultural stuff also complicates matters and that discerning things is not straightforward.
July 19, 2010 at 6:08 pm
Yes. It is very hard to sort this out. With God’s mercy however and prayer and the spiritual disciplines in the church, and time, I believe it is possible to do so.
I also am aware very much of the power / politics involved with language; I am an American-Canadian (of a Dutch-Canadian Mother who immigrated from Holland when a small child and now is an American having married my Dad) who lives in Ottawa where French is required for many jobs.
While none of the undercurrents of culture and the impact this has on how Catholics and Orthodox interactions (not to mention the ones like I am, a North American convert to Orthodoxy who has to figure out how to continue the conversion of Orthodoxy in our lives and hearts) is difficult, I agree that it is important.
If anything, once we realize how culturally Catholics and Orthodox may be miscommunicating or missing things entirely on what is meant by the other side, we can at least be gracious and merciful.
I have seen examples, at least on the Orthodox side, which I am more aware of given that it is the ‘side’ I converted to, of an ability to be firm in what one believes and sees and still have the ability to be gracious and allow each person thier journey…
July 19, 2010 at 6:12 pm
Oh, on the last comment, sorry: I did not mean to say that the discerning “of the undercurrents of culture and the impact this has on how Catholics and Orthodox interactions” is not difficult but that it IS difficult, but not impossible…
Sorry for the confusion – my fault entirely!
*
Christ is in our midst!
July 18, 2010 at 4:54 pm
I just had another illustrative thought.
I am very attached to two priests in my area. One is Catholic and one is Orthodox. The thing that draws me to both FIRST is their ability to explicate the gospels in their homilies so that the Word enters into my heart in ways that no others can do.
What makes me absolutely comfortable with both is they they know the doctrines of their confessions so well that when they preach the Word there is nothing in that preaching that confuses one in terms of doctrinal teaching or contradicts one or the other. There is no discord in their pastoral presentation as men, as priests and as teachers.
That is the universal Church at work…I believe.
M.
July 18, 2010 at 8:18 pm
Dear Macrina,
Just a few muddled thoughts of my own. I’m cradle Latin Rite Catholic who for the past 15 years has belonged to a Greek-Catholic parish (have not officially switched rites). (I don’t have any theological or advanced religious training.)
Our priest is a former Orthodox married with children who hasn’t seemed to have comprimised his priesthood. He doesn’t criticize the Orthodox.
I’m the chairman of our local chapter–www.byzcath.org/stjohnchrysostom
of the Society of St. John Chrysostom– http://www.ssjc.org/index.htm We’re “grassroots” and one of our goals is to make Eastern Christianity better known to Western Christians. In my opinion, this being strangers to each other is a major stumbling block to the unity of the apostolic churches.
Among the many things I’ve learned in this organization in the past ten years is that by praying together, talking to each other, eating together; we have come to love one another as brothers and sisters in Christ.
It seems there are many on the internet who like to talk about ecumenism and Catholic/Orthodox dialogue etc., but few seem to want to physically be with the other.
Yes, both Orthodox and Catholic have much to learn about each other, but unless there is a YEARNING IN THE HEART FOR UNITY our divisions will continue. May Mary, the Mother of God, intercede for us!
July 20, 2010 at 7:51 am
Vito,
Thanks for your thoughts. I think that one of the factors involved here is that these things often work very differently in different contexts and I’m pleased to hear of your grassroots initiatives. My concern is concerns when such things just remain at the level of politeness, without also enabling us to be honest to one another.
July 19, 2010 at 6:05 am
One should keep in mind that “culture” as a set of responses to the challenges of the world, is very much influenced (if not determined) by “religion” (taken as the binding element of any given society). All traditional societies are organized and act according to an initially revealed paradigm, the “dogmas”.
In the case of the Orthodox-Catholic relations this thing appears very clearly. It was not a difference between different “cultures” (Greek/Latin, East/West)viewed as products of an autonomous “Nature”, that led to the split of the once common (East and West) Weltanschaung of Christianity. It was the change in the founding presuppositions of a Christian society that led to the formation of different “cultures” (or rather cultural approaches to the Christian Mystery).
We must stress that it was the “West” which changed the dogmas. It is true that it happened when the “West” succumbed to the blandishments of an alien to Christianity culture, the “Hellenic” one, which the “East” (Byzance and the Slavonic world)did not, but that was not a “natural” fenomenon. In the West the “Hellenic” philosophers (more precisely the so-called Neoplatonics)succeeded in subordinating the Mystery of the Trinity to the categories of the human reason.
In the East the human reason was subdued by the Mystery of the Trinity. In the West Akademe and Lyceum took precedence over the Magisterium of the Church, the Professors and Doctors over the Fathers of the Church, School(the Latin translation of hairesis=particular opinion) over the consensus of the Fathers and all believers expressed in the horoi of the Ecumenical Synods – that is the meaning of “Catholicity”, a “Greek” word by the way), the natural “Light” of the mind over the Unapproachable Light seen in the heart purified after strenuous ascetic efforts (“Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God”).
A dialogue between these mutually exclusive paradigmes is simply impossible. What is attempted now in the “ecumenical” dialogue is simply the abandonment by the Orthodox of their paradigm. Do not overlook the fact that it is the West which called for the dialogue and set the agenda and is relentless in demanding that the Orthodox “behave” politely (prohibition of questions and arguments “ad hominem” are well known propaganda techniques). The “West” cast itself in the position of the “dominant culture” and asks the “inferior” one (the Orthodox) to tow the line (or else!). They secured the support of a significant number of Orthodox acculturated to the western outlook, or simply corrupted – many are tenured “academics” at Catholic Universities -, to promote their western line as if coming from Orthodoxy itself and from that to accuse Orthodoxy of contradicting itself.
Have a look at the recent Conference “Orthodox constructions of the West” to see at work the process of corruption (announced openly by the key address speaker Robert Taft, a Jesuit perfectly candid about the propaganda techniques of his order).
The Orthodox (those who remained Orthodox) ask for repentance from their western counterparts. Repentance in its strong meaning, metanoia=change of mind. To renounce their particular opinions and adopt the “catholic” view. “Heresy” is not hairesis = particular opinion. A particular opinion may be perfectly “Orthodox”, but it may be an erroneous one as well. Heresy is the persistence in the wrong opinion, even when confronted with the true one. It is the willing refusal of communion.
So heresy is the persistent refusal of the Bishop of Rome to acknowledge his rightful place (smaller than his pretenses), heresy is the promotion of filioque despite the universal condemnation of it, heresy is the claim of infallibility of a mere human, heresy is… but the list is to long and I must let you, Sister Macrina, to work it out for yourself.
July 19, 2010 at 11:10 am
Dear Seraphim,
As a formal student of cultural anthropology, and with respect to your efforts, it seems to me that your thoughts are indeed muddled.
IF there is anything remotely approaching a singular determining element of culture over time it is language.
Religion influences culture in the context of a language and as we have seen over time, Latin and Greek nuance quite differently in some instances and the language guides the nuance of the faith just as faith constructs the implements of language.
Your binary dualism is an exceptionally modern, and some might say secular and western, way of looking at culture and all of her elements.
Mary
July 19, 2010 at 11:55 pm
Filioque is not a “nuance” of the language. It is a plain logical error.
July 20, 2010 at 7:58 am
Seraphim,
While there may be some aspects of truth in some of what you say, I find your reading both of the relationship between religion and culture, and of the relationship between East and West, and indeed of the relationship between Orthodoxy and heresy, far too simplistic. Indeed it reveals that we indeed need to look at Orthodox constructions of the West, whatever the dangers involved in that process. But I would also like to see this accompanied by looking at Catholic (and other western) constructions of the East.
July 20, 2010 at 8:34 am
Dear Sister Macrina,
My reading of the relations East/West may appear simplistic. I was not writing a treatise of history. My objections to the kind of approach of the genre “Orthodox constructions…” is that deliberately avoids the real problem which is simple: the West (i.e. the RCC) departed from the tradition of the Church. This is not a matter of “inventing” heresy, but in the real sense of “invention”=discovery. East discovered in time that the Popes changed the tradition of the Apostles, of the Fathers, by their own authority. To their admonitions to return to the tradition of the Church, the West responded with arrogance and naked aggression. The “Orthodox constructions…” reveals the same type of arrogance.
July 20, 2010 at 8:38 pm
Thank you for writing this, it is quite well-stated, I think.
Disclaimer for what follows: I was Latin Catholic from baptism as an infant until I was ~30, then Eastern Catholic for three years (part of that “canonically” as well), and have been Eastern Orthodox for the past ten years.
I think a few things you have written, particularly this quote, ring true for me:
In the interview posted by Father Milovan, Metropolitan John Zizioulas argued that Orthodox opponents of ecumenism need to appreciate that the Catholic Church has changed in her attitudes to the Orthodox and no longer seeks to dominate them. While Catholic attitudes to Orthodoxy clearly have changed, I think that we may legitimately ask to what extent this has simply involved a mutation into something more subtle
Indeed.
There is an ethos in Catholicism – in the rank and file, not among “Eastern experts” like Fr. Taft – that “Latin Catholicism is default/universal”. Protestantism is seen as “wrong/heretical” im terms of doctrine and practice, but Orthodoxy is seen as “exotic/Eastern/ethnic/particular” when compared with the multicultural, global and perceived universality of Latin Catholicism. (I will address the Eastern Catholics below, because they are a special, albeit important, case). Note that this does not preclude Latin Catholics from being very warm towards the Eastern Orthodox – we are, in comparison to the “primary foil” (in Catholic eyes) of Protestantism, preferable, despite our “stubborn” separation. I think that is, in part, because from the perspective of Catholicism, Protestantism is its “relevant other” – the counter-point against which its own identity has developed in recent centuries, such that the ecclesial world is often (and often unconsciously) divided between what looks/seems Protestant, and what looks/seems Catholic, and Orthodox firmly fall on the Catholic side of this divide. The divide between Protestants and Catholics has defined both Latin Catholicism and Protestantism for centuries now, such that the differences between Rome and Orthodoxy (which bothered Roman Catholics in the centuries before the Reformation) no longer really “rate” in terms of being issues of concern. And even for the more hawkish Catholics (when it comes to Eastern Christians), the differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy are just on a very different level to those between Protestantism and Catholicism.
It’s on that basis, I think, that Catholics can be exceptionally irenic towards Orthodox in comparison to how they can be vis-a-vis Protestantism, and how Orthodox can be vis-a-vis Catholicism. Their experiences with Protestantism have led Catholics to view the differences between Orthodoxy and Catholicism as minimal in comparison. In addition, the “presumed universality” of Catholicism, and the relative size of Latin Catholicism presently when compared with Eastern Christianity, means that Catholics are generally unthreatened by Orthodoxy – I would say more or less completely unthreatened by it. The main idea often is this: “They are basically like us, they just need to get over the Pope and join the modern world” and so on. As a result, we get the irenic attitude towards union and so on, but what often underlies that irenic approach is the realization that the Latin Church will remain “in charge” and “at large” in terms of being the dominant voice and force even within a unified Orthodox Catholic Church — this is almost never stated, but it is largely assumed, just based on the numbers involved and how the Catholic Church actually works.
And that is where the situation of the Eastern Catholics becomes relevant. Rome now officially repudiates the method by which the various Eastern Catholics entered into union with Rome, mostly because of the partial nature of these unions, as well as the problems wrought by them. That is a good and welcome recognition, and a pragmatic one, because I think both Latin Catholics and Eastern Orthodox know that a lot of bad blood has been sown by virtue of the existence of these churches – in terms of bad acts and attitudes by Catholics and Orthodox alike. But what is not rejected, really, is the way these churches now exist in Catholicism. A Roman “Congregation on the Eastern Churches”. A unitary code of canon law for *all* of the Eastern Catholic Churches, despite their particularisms. A “universal” catechism that occasionally reflects “an Eastern perspective” on this or that issue, but otherwise is composed firmly from the Latin perspective and so on. Now I will say that while many of the Eastern Catholic Churches have done a yeoman’s job in trying to resist some of this (the Melkites come to mind), yet from the perspective of Mother Rome, these structures seem to be justified, as the rightful exercise of the primacy of the Latin Church (I realize that this is *not* what Catholicism officially teaches, but thanks to the scope and power of the Vatican’s bureaucracy, it is often what it becomes in practice). And that idea – which is an idea expressed in functions and structures and not in doctrine – is the subtle yet pervasive idea of Latin universality and Eastern particularity.
Against that background, the relative reticence of Orthodox in the relationship with Catholicism, is well founded, I think. Rome talks a good game in terms of reaching out to embrace us, but underlying this is often the comfortable, and often unstated or even unconscious, assumption of Latin universality – something which makes the assimilation of Orthodoxy into Catholicism both appealing and non-threatening. This really isn’t the case from the perspective of Orthodox looking at what Union with Rome would actually be like for us. In particular, Orthodox need to pay close attention to how Rome actually deals with the Eastern Catholic Churches, because that is currently the working model that Rome has for dealing with the East. I realize that Rome has also said that it is open to new ideas about the role of the Pope vis-a-vis the Eastern Churches, and that is of course welcome, but for the time being new ideas do not seem to have influenced its dealings with the “Orthodox in communion with Rome” who exist today. That is far from irrelevant, really, in terms of how Orthodox view this issue.
Catholics will probably immediately object that I am being uncharitable and that the statements of the Catholic Church toward the East do not mention an intention to assimilate and so on. Fair enough. I would agree that the Orthodox-ophilic Catholics who tend to populate the Orthodox-Catholic dialogue would generally not express these views. But the rank and file, who are not especially knowledgeable of the East, often do evince them, even if this is subtle and unvoiced. It’s that massive organism of Latin Catholicism, and not the rather tiny group of Orthodoxophile Catholic ecumenists, like Taft, that really form the main “thrust” of the culture of the Catholic Church, including the interaction of that main culture with the Eastern Orthodox Church.
July 21, 2010 at 3:46 pm
Brendan, Thank you for your comment – I think that you say some very helpful things in clarifying some of this.
I have occasionally thought that in some respects the relationships between Catholic attitudes to Orthodoxy have something in common with the attitudes of some (ecumenically minded) Protestants towards Catholicism – a wanting to be accepted as they are and not being able to understand why the “mother” Church will not accept her wayward “daughters” as they have become. In fact some Catholic attitudes in being confronted with the fact that they cannot have “intercommunion” with the Orthdox, have defintely reminded me of Protestant attitudes I have encountered when confronted with Catholic teaching.
However, I am also aware, as I mentioned in a comment above, that these things also vary according to the Catholic context one is in. I also think that in some contexts, the Catholic desire for good relations with the Orthodox is connected to a sort of nostalgia for what they have lost. And it may indeed be more than a nostalgia but a real search for lost roots. And Orthodox may indeed have a role in helping Catholics here, but then it has to be genuine help that addresses the root issues and not just a case of surface stuff.
July 21, 2010 at 4:10 pm
Two things Macrina.
One relates to my comment to Brendan which is that you will see, in renewed communion, a relationship of peers in terms of primatial power so there will be no wayward daughter scenario.
And then secondly, there’s been inter-communion between Catholics and Orthodox, of a regional nature, since the schism became solidified…something that has not gone on between Catholic and Protestant except pastor by pastor and then only person to person in the main. Certainly nothing to match the scale of those times and places where there was Orthodox and Catholic intercommunion.
Mary
July 22, 2010 at 4:41 am
If the Orthodox can offer genuine help that addresses the root issues we must look at the root issues indeed and not at the “surface stuff”. They always addressed the root issue that is the claims of the Bishop of Rome to universal dominion over the Church.
Most recently Pope Benedict renounced the title of “Patriarch of the West” in an apparent gesture to help the ecumenical dialogue. He retained the more modest ones of “Vicar of Christ”, “Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church”, “Successor of the Prince of the Apostles”, exactly the ones that attract the objections of the Orthodox. Coupled with his pronouncement that the other Churches not recognizing the primacy of the Pope are “wounded”, the emphatic restatement of the universal primacy cannot but raise eyebrows and reinforce the suspicion of doublespeak.
It is exactly the title of Patriarch of the West that could have been a real opener of the deadlock. It was only in the system of the Pentarchy that the primacy (of honour) of the Pope had any sense. A missed opportunity.
As to the attitude of the rank and file RC, think only at the relentless propaganda for the “consecration” and conversion of Russia deployed by the Blue Army of the Lady of Fatima.
July 25, 2010 at 1:48 pm
Indeed, which is why it is critical for Orthodox to continue to pursue relationships with Catholics, both officially and on the grassroots level. There are indeed many Catholics who are “hungry” for their own roots, if you will.
One example of this, among many, is how byzantine-style icons have been popping up in Latin churches in the last 10-20 years. While these are not really intrinsic to the developed Latin tradition, nevertheless the growing appreciation for them presents a point of contact and communication, and also a point for sharing the Orthodox view of icons, and sacred art in general, and quite a bit of the Orthodox approach to the faith, tied together as this is with the theology of the icon.
It’s things like that can be an important and significant point of encounter between Catholics and Orthodox, if handled properly by both.
July 26, 2010 at 4:21 pm
Brendan, I agree that this really is important. But the example that you give of icons also raises for me the danger and the difficulty involved in this. I am all for Catholics discovering icons, insofar as it leads them to understanding Orthodox apporoaches. But what I find difficult to deal with is the way some (not all) Catholics approach icons, developing them in a way that doesn’t respect the integrity of the tradition. Some of this discussion was sparked by a post by Deacon Stephen reacting to an “icon” of the Sacred Heart of Jesus. My own response is that I do find it positive if Catholics use icons, but only if they are prepared to abide by the canon and respect (and seek to discover) the theological integrity of the icon.
July 26, 2010 at 11:37 pm
Sister Macrina,
In relation to your concerns about the use of icons in Catholic churches, might I politely say, don’t make the good the enemy of the perfect? What is the essential difference between a peasant woman in Greece praying before an icon of the Mother of God, and a peasant woman in Italy praying before a statue or an icon of the Mother of God? Neither would be aware of any canons on this issue, nor of the theological minutiae of these debates. Both would be concerned to bring their lives, concerns, sufferings and hopes into the presence of pure holiness, and with them to bring all that they love into obedience to the will of God through the assistance of His Mother. Isn’t that what’s important? This does not make the question of canons, customs and right-use unimportant; nonetheless, it perhaps puts it into some perspective.
Looked at negatively, why should Catholics abide by an ancient canon on icons, when the Orthodox themselves fail to abide by canons against overlapping (and sometimes warring) juristictions? Who decides which canons one should observe, and which ones can be dismissed as relatively unimportant? The Church as an icon of unity, one that participates in the reality to which it points, also has integrity which is compromised by the typical Orthodox approach in the diaspora and elsewhere. This is an incorrect use of the Church as icon, one that obscures the face of the Lord, showing the failure of the Orthodox to abide by its own canons, compromising its theological integrity. How can the Orthodox say the Church is “one”, when in practice it allows for various canonical Orthodox churches to exist side by side, under different bishops, who are sometimes at theological war with each other and who fail to respect the discipline of the other (in, for example, matters of marriage and divorce) and even suspect the other of heresy?
My concern in all this is that it is important for each communion to see the beam in its own eye before it becomes preoccupied with the splinter in the eye of the other.
Having said all that, where did you start to discover the theological integrity of the icon? What approach would you suggest? Where to begin?
July 27, 2010 at 4:17 pm
Stephen,
Thanks for your reaction. I’m sorry that I wasn’t clearer. I really wasn’t thinking of judging peasant women’s (or anyone else’s) genuiness in praying in front of icons (or statues). When I spoke about canons, it was really more iconographers I had in mind. If western Christians want to paint icons – there are of course some Orthodox who would not want them to do this at all -, then I do think that one should demand that they seek to uphold the theological integrity of the icon. If people want to pray with images of the Sacred Heart or the Holy Family – or, more radically, of Ghandi or Martin Luther King -, then I think that they would be better to stick to statues, otherwise one is somehow mixing up style and content.
I take your point about canonicity, but that doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be something we should be striving towards.
As for me and icons and theology, I can’t answer that so easily as it was more things I imbibed, sometimes from Catholics who were seeking to repect the tradition. I’ll have to think some more and maybe write something…
July 21, 2010 at 4:06 pm
What you are leaving out of the equation here, Brendan is the Patriarchal System of Orthodoxy. You are leaving out the resolution that will reconcile not only Petrine Primacy but Primatial Power in general which will go many many miles down the road to correcting much of what went wrong with the Unia.
What you are describing that you fear is Unia.
What is being examined at the moment bilaterally is Primatial Communion, and where Petrine Primacy fits in that system of governance that is essentially conciliar and episcopal.
So you have good points when it comes to the current situation but your vision stops there…I think.
Mary
July 22, 2010 at 8:08 pm
Mary,
The concern I have is that there doesn’t seem to be any real move on Rome’s part to go beyond the current model it has with Eastern Catholics. The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches is only about 20 years old and it is nothing that Orthodoxy would want to sign off on. I bring up the question of how the two communions could co-exist with regards to the ordination of married men. Right now Rome wants a final say about ordaining married men in Eastern Catholic Churches here in the US to prevent Latin Riters from tranferring over and getting ordained in Eastern Catholic Churches. Would Orthodox parishes have to agree to such an arrangement? I doubt Orthodox would want to be viewed as an exception that has to be regulated by Rome. But, if maintaining union between Western and Eastern Catholics requires such actions, what indications are there that Rome is ready for two different disciplines to co-exist? For that matter, how to handle the different views of divorce and re-marriage? Would Orthodox have to have all those cases subject to review? Eastern Catholic Churches that used to follow the traditional Eastern approach to divorce and remarriage were forced to adopt the Western procedures. That’s a huge issue that could prove to be an impasse.
Orthodox have their problems and need to make some acknowledgements of past trangressions, to be sure. We’re also pig-headed at times. But, the situations I mention above give no indication that Rome is ready to live with two different disciplines in place. At the most, all I can see Rome thinking of doing right now is some amendments in Eastern Catholic canon law.
July 25, 2010 at 1:42 pm
Indeed, as I say, I know that the discussion now revolves around the exercise of the primacy in communion, in a way that works with Orthodox ecclesiology and practice. I still think, however, that the way that Rome currently treats its own Eastern Churches is not helpful to the dialogue — again, not among the “dialoguers” themselves, but among the rank and file.
It needs to be remembered that any union between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church will need to be sold to Orthodox, but not really to Catholics. So the concern as to “how this will all work in practice” and “how is this going to be different from the Eastern Catholics” is a quite important one, really. If the dialoguers achieve agreement at the 30,000 foot level and cannot “sell” this to the Orthodox rank and file as a whole, nothing will be accomplished other than further schism in the Orthodox Church, as was the case in the aftermath of Florence.
July 22, 2010 at 7:53 am
Quoting Brendan:
“In particular, Orthodox need to pay close attention to how Rome actually deals with the Eastern Catholic Churches, because that is currently the working model that Rome has for dealing with the East. I realize that Rome has also said that it is open to new ideas about the role of the Pope vis-a-vis the Eastern Churches, and that is of course welcome, but for the time being new ideas do not seem to have influenced its dealings with the “Orthodox in communion with Rome” who exist today. That is far from irrelevant, really, in terms of how Orthodox view this issue.”
Excellent comment! This is my observation as a former Byzantine Catholic myself.
And, if Brendan is reading this I pass on a personal note as I’m sure we’re old friends from several years back. I just want Brendan to know that I’ve made my way back to Holy Orthodoxy myself and hope he might drop a line.
July 25, 2010 at 1:38 pm
Ah, yes, I do remember you from many years ago. Glad to hear that you are doing well, Dave! 🙂
July 22, 2010 at 4:34 pm
Brother Seraphim fails to account for the fact that the Catholic Church is also wounded by schism, in that we are out of communion with other Catholics who are possessed of full Apostolic succession. This is also a wounding and recognized as such in the pontificates of John Paul II and also of Benedict XVI.
Mary
July 22, 2010 at 10:40 pm
Mary,
The RCC is the one really wounded by the schism which it provoked by peddling papal primacy. What she has to get rid of is precisely the “primacy”. The reassertion of it, even sugar coated, shows a determination to remain in the schism.
July 23, 2010 at 7:13 am
Excuse the rambling nature of this response… I first encountered this blog last year while doing a google search for Placide Deseille. I had just read the story of his journey to Orthodoxy and was interested to learn more about him. Since then, I was fascinated to learn of Macrina’s own embrace of Orthodoxy. As a Roman Catholic, and something of a traditional one – ie. who attends almost exclusively the old Latin Mass – who loves the monastic tradition as expressed at Le Barroux, Fontgombault, Clear Creek and other traditional Roman Catholic monasteries, I have always felt an affinity with the Orthodox, since the insights of the Orthodox (both on liturgcial questions and the question of papal primacy) can illuminate to some extent the experience of those Catholics who lament the loss, by papal fiat, of the old Roman liturgy and the subsequent liturgical chaos in the Roman Catholic Church, which the current Pope is trying – against much opposition – to rectify. My interest in the East is also enhanced daily by my wife, who is Greek Orthodox and with whom I worship from to time to time. We were married in the Orthodox Church. I am reasonably well read in Orthodox spirituality and polemics, from the Philokalia, to Lossky, Seraphim Rose and Fr Louth.
All of which brings me to my point. For my part, I can contribute the following to this discussion: my wife and I live a practical ecumenism which respects the real differences and does not endeavour to diminish them – but nor does it diminish the real connections. We pray together, using aspects of both Orthodox and Catholic prayers (from the Office, in particular, especially the psalms), before the holy icons. I reverence the icons in the Eastern manner, but I do not expect – nor would I ask my wife – to pray before statues, since I realise that she is not comfortable doing so (despite Frederica Matthews-Green have been spoken to by Christ from a Roman Catholic statued, prior to her reception into Orthodoxy!). I must say that when I reverence the icons it is not simply for the sake of outward apperances; I find the practice illuminating, comforting, wholistic, real.
My wife and I attend one another’s churches from time to time, where we are respectivly welcomed by the other’s clergy; I partake of the andithoro in her church with the permission of her priest; we keep certain common fasts together; and, as I’ve said, we pray together. All of this,I hope, gives me some limited authority to comment on some of what has been said thus far. Having reflected on the arguments for the schism, and recognising some of the problems with rationalism in the Roman Catholic Church (see Geoffrey Hull’s forthcoming The Banished Heart: Origins of Heteropraxis in the Catholic Church, Continuum, Oct 2010, for an excellent study of the decline of Rome’s liturgical sense after and resulting from the separation with the East), I remain unconvinced by superficial critiques of reason. One irony is apparent in this very thread, where Seraphim – having critiqued the West’s reverence for Reason – himself resorts to the art of Reason, by declaring that the filioque “is a plain logical error”. To declare something illogical is to exercise one’s reason; to declare this “plain” is to engage in the very type of Enlightenment rationalism (we hold these truths to be self-evident) for which the East rightly criticises the West, and to ignore that saints such as St Augustine did not find it “a plain logical error”. This is not to dismiss Seraphim’s position out of hand, simply to point out that he himself is influenced – as are so many Orthodox (see the work of Michael Pomozanky) – by the very thing they criticise.
If the danger in Roman Catholicism is rationalism, the danger in Orthodoxy – especially when it relies on superficiaul critiques of Reason (something Placide Deseille refuses to do, acknowleding as he does the clarity and beauty in Aquinas) – is fideism. It seems to me that the greatest gift each Church (Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic) can give to the other, is to point this out, to show the other where it is deficient. Reason has its place. Without an appeal to reason, for example, it becomes possible to suspend canonical order – as the Orthodox do routinely (in one example I know of, two Orthodox churches exist side by side – one Macedonian, the other Greek – and they have nothing to do with each other). While I find it difficult to feel in communion with Catholic churches where the liturgy is dire, it seems to me little different than the experience of those Greeks and Macadonians who, while professing the same faith, are for all intents and purposes in schism from one another – altar set up against altar – though they are basically oblivious to the fact that anything is wrong with this situation. This could not happen in the Roman Catholic Church. On the other hand, as David Bentley Hart has noted, the Roman communion can seem so diverse now in what liturgical practices and doctrinal deviations it is willing to tolerate – even if unofficially – that “communion” becomes a questionable term; here Rome could learn from the Orthodox. In the end, Orthodoxy and Catholicism need each other, or rather, the world needs to message of salvation, and a united Orthodox and Catholic Church would most effectively communicate this.
July 24, 2010 at 6:57 am
Stephen,
Orthodoxy never shunned reason and logic. What it always affirmed was that reason cannot “define” the Mysteries that are above human reason. The Orthodox hold the truth of the Trinity as self evident because it was received from the Apostles who have received it directly from the Logos Incarnated.
The fact that a saint like Augustin did not find the double procession of the Holy Spirit to be an error is due probably to the fact that he was the first to make it, although he would, I am convinced, have opposed with all his energy the unnecessary introduction of the filioque in the Creed (or better to say the imposition of filioque against the opposition of the whole Church – including the Pope)with all its dire consequences. It was the rationalistic approach that led to the gradual loss of the sense of mystery which Orthodoxy never lost, even if it was sometimes dulled.
July 25, 2010 at 2:12 pm
These are good points. I also believe that each of us lost something in the schism. Different things, however, as you point out. While the kind of jurisdictional shenanigans we see in the Orthodox Church would be impossible in Catholicism, the kind of liturgical and doctrinal revisionism we see in Catholicism would be impossible in Orthodoxy, despite our lack of a central organization with enforcement power.
What we have here are two different kinds of authority, really, in *practice* — I emphasize “in practice” because at least in Catholicism what we read “in theory” in the CCC is different often from what we see in practice. Therefore comparing the practice of the two churches seems more appropriate to me.
In practice, the “glue” that holds the diverse house of Catholicism together is the actual canonical authority of Rome and the bishops it appoints. It’s kind of a more “external” authority, such that as long as the rank and file submit to the external authority, quite a bit of variation in liturgical and doctrinal matters (within boundaries, of course, but the boundaries are set fairly broadly) is tolerated. A corollary impact of this is that one can wonder what would actually happen in Catholicism if that external force of authority were changed.
In practice, in Orthodoxy, the source of authority is more “internal”. This doesn’t mean that bishops and synods lack authority, but it does mean that schisms from them happen more often. It also means that much *less* variation is tolerated in terms of liturgical and doctrinal matters, because in Orthodoxy these are the glue — and not outward authority — that holds the Church together as a whole. There isn’t any structural organization, for example, that holds together the Antiochian Archdiocese and the Orthodox Church in America other than the fact of communion, which is based on the “inward” authority of joint submission to a common faith and common worship practice.
Both models have upsides and downsides. The Catholic model’s upsides is that it tends to minimize schism and uphold formal unity much better. Its downside is that it can act as “cover” to a (from the Orthodox perspective troublingly) wide array of practices and beliefs. And, in certain circumstances, it can prove to be a much more powerful agent for radical change in the Church (as we saw in Latin Catholicism in the 60s and 70s — changes made possible by the mechanism of external authority).
The Orthodox model’s upside is that it is less susceptible to being a “cover” for various novelties, and is downright hostile towards quick adjustment to changing cultural realities (i.e., the kind of quick change that happened in Latin Catholicism would be impossible in Orthodoxy due to the internal nature of authority as tradition). The downside is that it can result in schisms, and other disorderly situations (e.g, the confrontation over Estonia, the situation of the “diaspora” Orthodox churches and so on).
It’s easy to say “we need a hybrid model, then”. It’s hard to know what that would really look like. As a former Catholic, I have grave doubts about what the rank and file of the Latin Church would do without the kind of external authority now placed on them — especially in places like North America. At the same time, Orthodox would benefit from greater canonical order, for certain, but I would be very surprised if Orthodoxy would ever really change its model of authority from being primarily “inward fidelity to tradition” to one of “external fidelity to the episcopate”. Of course, it’s possible to be “both/and” here, and a better balance needs to be struck, for certain, but as to what that balance actually is, I have no real idea.