Posted on 06/11/2005 7:27:43 AM PDT by sionnsar
Ten years ago or so I dreamed that I was an Orthodox priest. If you had asked me even three years ago what if I would become if I ever decided to leave the Episcopal Church, I would have replied “Eastern Orthodox.” Yet today I find myself becoming what I truly never seriously considered until the past two years.
Why did I not choose to become Orthodox? Who but God can answer? All such matters are a mystery, a mystery between the mystery of the human heart and the mystery of the Holy Trinity. Rational analysis takes one only so far. All I really know is that during the past two years, as I intently studied both Orthodoxy and Catholicism, I found myself increasingly drawn, against my will and desire, and certainly to my amazement, to Catholicism.
I love the liturgy and sacramental life of the Orthodox Church. It speaks to the depths of my heart. I long to pray the Divine Liturgy and be formed by its music, poetry, beaity, and ritual.
I love the integration of theology, dogma, spirituality, and asceticism within Orthodoxy. There is a wholeness to Orthodox experience that is compelling, powerful, and attractive on many different levels. This wholeness refuses any bifurcation between mind and heart and invites the believer into deeper reconciliation in Christ by the Spirit. This wholeness is something that Western Christians particularly need, as we confront and battle the corrosive powers of Western modernity and secularism.
I love the reverence and devotion Orthodoxy gives to the saints and church fathers, who are experienced in the Church as living witnesses to the gospel of Christ Jesus. I love the icons.
And I love the theological writings of many Orthodox writers, especially Alexander Schmemann and Georges Florovsky. For all these reasons and for many more, it would have been oh so very easy for me to become Orthodox.
But two features in particular gave me pause.
First, I am troubled by Orthodoxy’s “Easternness.” The coherence and power of Orthodoxy is partially achieved by excluding the Western tradition from its spiritual and theological life. One is hard-pressed to find an Orthodox writer who speaks highly of the Western Church, of her saints, ascetics, and theologians, of her manifold contributions to Christian religion and Western civilization. According to Orthodox consensus, Western Christianity went off the tracks somewhere along the way and must now be judged as a heresy. Understandably, Eastern Christianity considers itself the touchstone and standard by which the Western tradition is to be judged.
To put it simply, Orthodoxy has no real place for St Augustine. He is commemorated as a saint, but the bulk of his theological work is rejected. The noted scholar, Fr John Romanides, has been particularly extreme. I raised my concern about Orthodoxy and the West a year ago in my blog article Bad, bad Augustine. In that article I cited one of the few Orthodox scholars, David B. Hart, who has been willing to address Orthodox caricature of Western theologians:
The most damaging consequence, however, of Orthodoxy’s twentieth-century pilgrimage ad fontes—and this is no small irony, given the ecumenical possibilities that opened up all along the way—has been an increase in the intensity of Eastern theology’s anti-Western polemic. Or, rather, an increase in the confidence with which such polemic is uttered. Nor is this only a problem for ecumenism: the anti-Western passion (or, frankly, paranoia) of Lossky and his followers has on occasion led to rather severe distortions of Eastern theology. More to the point here, though, it has made intelligent interpretations of Western Christian theology (which are so very necessary) apparently almost impossible for Orthodox thinkers. Neo-patristic Orthodox scholarship has usually gone hand in hand with some of the most excruciatingly inaccurate treatments of Western theologians that one could imagine—which, quite apart form the harm they do to the collective acuity of Orthodox Christians, can become a source of considerable embarrassment when they fall into the hands of Western scholars who actually know something of the figures that Orthodox scholars choose to caluminiate. When one repairs to modern Orthodox texts, one is almost certain to encounter some wild mischaracterization of one or another Western author; and four figures enjoy a special eminence in Orthodox polemics: Augustine, Anselm, Thomas Aquinas, and John of the Cross.
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.
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.
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.
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?
For the past two years I have struggled to discern whether to remain an Anglican (in some form or another) or to embrace either Orthodoxy or Catholicism. Both Orthodoxy and Catholicism make mutually exclusive claims to be the one and true Church of Jesus Christ. We are confronted by a stark either/or choice. An Anglican is tempted to retreat to a branch theory of the Church, and on that basis make a decision on which tradition appeals to him most; but both Orthodoxy and Catholicism emphatically reject all such branch theories. There is only one visible Church. To become either Orthodox or Catholic means accepting the claim of the respective communion to ecclesial exclusivity. How do we rightly judge between them?
One thing we cannot do. We cannot pretend that we can assume a neutral vantage point. Oh how much easier things would be for all of us if God would call us on our telephones right now and tell us what to do!
The Pope convenes the College of Cardinals in emergency session. “I’ve got some good news and some bad news,” he says. “The good news is this: I just received a phone call from God!” Everyone cheers. “But here’s the bad news: God lives in Salt Lake City.”
I cannot see the Church from God’s perspective. I am faced with a choice. Good arguments can be presented for both Orthodoxy and Catholicism; none appear to be absolutely decisive and coercive. Moreoever, considerations that seem important to me are probably irrelevant to the large majority of people. “The Church is a house with a hundred gates,” wrote Chesterton; “and no two men enter at exactly the same angle.” Finally, I can only rely upon my reason, my intuitions, my feelings, my faith, under the grace and mercy of God. May God forgive me if I have chosen wrongly.
(cont)
Actual graces, yes. These are the holy inspirations which direct our thoughts and works to acts of piety.
Sanctifying graces no. Sanctifying graces are communicated in the main through the Sacraments, Sacramentals, and prayer.
An atheist does not have sanctifying grace "rain down upon him". He does receive actual graces prompting him to faith, if only he would cooperate with them, and if he had faith, he could then receive sanctification.
To say that sanctifying grace rains down on all is to make it only effective upon our cooperation with it, rather than of itself. It is inconceivable to us to think of the Holy Spirit dwelling in a sinner, and he only failing to obtain the good benefits of God's grace due to his own obstinance. Just as the Glory of God left the Temple at its fall (Ezekiel 10.18), so the Holy Spirit leaves the soul of the sinner at the moment of sin.
Basically, you seem to be saying that God is already all in all, and that a man needs nothing but self-actualization to realize that God is already within him. This sounds very New Agey.
The word "believer" in Serbia is synonimous with Orthodox.
And here you have touched upon something that is not often spoken of among us, much less with those outside the church.
Hermann, that is not what I read in Latin sources. What the RCC in essence says is that she was born free from any propensity or desire to sin.
Baptism is not empowerment, but sanctification.
"Christ also loved the church and delivered himself up for it: that he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life." (Ephesians 5.25-26)
"For as many of you as have been baptized in Christ have put on Christ." (Galatians 3.27)
"Know you not that all we who are baptized in Christ Jesus are baptized in his death? For we are buried together with him by baptism into death: that, as Christ is risen from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also may walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection. Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin may be destroyed, to the end that we may serve sin no longer." (Romans 6.3-6)
"Do penance: and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins. And you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, whomsoever the Lord our God shall call." (Acts 2.38-39)
Those who are not Baptised are still under the power of the devil.
"Know you not that to whom you yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants you are whom you obey, whether it be of sin unto death or of obedience unto justice. But thanks be to God, that you were the servants of sin but have obeyed from the heart unto that form of doctrine into which you have been delivered. Being then freed from sin, we have been made servants of justice." (Romans 6.16-18)
If Baptism is simply empowerment, than sanctification is the work of man, rather than of God. God puts the means at our disposal, and then leaves us to respond to complete the task. But St. Paul says: "God is he that justifieth" (Romans 8.33). And if Baptism is empowerment to more fully respond to grace than we might otherwise, is there another "Way" (St. John 14.6) to eternal life besides putting on Christ, or another way to Christ besides Baptism?
The "state of mortal sin" is the state of being at enmity with God and deprived of his grace, justice and holiness.
The alternate position to this is to be in the state of grace, justice and holiness.
This is why we have both continued to ask very simply (as yet receiving confusing replies), do you believe newborn infants come into the world in a state of grace or a state of sin?
Either a person is a friend of God, and in His grace, or an enemy of God, and apart from His grace. Which is it for the newborn infant?
Okay, let me try. I am saying that if the Immaculate Conception is true, then the Blessed Virgin Mary was born with something other than what we have -- by the will of God. Using Latin mode of expression (forgive me if I am off on this one) it seems to me that she received not just the "general" graceGod extends to all people, but a sanctifying grace as well. That in intself made her not desire to sin and therefore her sinflessness is not something she achieved, but something that was given to her but not to the rest of us.
From which one must conclude that God deprives us of His santifying grace. But the fact that in order for us to achieve sanctifying grace we must cooperate on our own free will implies that the BVM did not and did not have to.
Thus, what is understood from the IC is that God can but doens't give us santificying grace that would restore us to Adams and Eves. It also suggests that giving sanctifying grace -- as in the case of the BVM -- means that reaching theosis and rejection of sin would not be our doing, but God's.
Adam was so created, and yet he fell, as did Eve.
St. Mary did not fall because she chose otherwise, having already experienced the excellence of the glory of God. She did not desire sin because she had already experienced a stronger communion with God than any allurement of sin might offset. She was perfectly free to chose otherwise, but she didn't.
I guess I'm more confused than ever.
The Baltimore Catechism answers that only one person was conceived free of original sin, and yet the Prophet Jeremiah was cleansed of original sin while in the womb? I guess this means that the Prophet had original sin and was thus in a state of mortal sin, but got cleansed of it at some point prior to birth, i.e. received the benefit of a baptism, just a little later than she did in utero? And I suppose this means that others got the same benefit, just without us knowing about it.
And Pius IX didn't mean what he said when he said that she was filled with so much grace at her conception that she had more than she needed to do what she needed to do? Really what he meant was that she had the same baptism that any other Catholic gets -- just at the time of her conception?
Interesting. I'm afraid that you folks are going to have to give up on me on this point. Seems pretty hair-splitting to me, and thus beyond my abilities...
Um, I don't need to. I have a volume on my shelves that contains St. Gregory's homily on the Annunciation, or at least one of them, if he had more than one. I just read it at Annunciation a couple of months ago, and I read it again this evening, without finding anything any different from what most of the Orthodox on this thread have been telling you that they understand regarding the Theotokos.
I would also add that St. Gregory's sermons, like those of any Orthodox homilies, are going to be heard and understood within the tradition from which it is being preached. We pray the prayers of the Paraklesis and the Akathist to the Theotokos, and they shape us and our thought, but we also understand it within a tradition that teaches us that we can participate directly in the energies of God, without any necessary mediator other than the God-man Jesus Christ, who is, in his person, the bridge between God and man.
I didn't find your quotation, so it must be from another homily, I suppose. His sermons are indeed quite simple. They closely follow the St. John Chrysostom tradition of homilies and Gospel interpretation. A reading of the Explanation of St. Theophylact, of St. Gregory's sermons, of the "official" homilies appointed for reading on Sunday's in the Russian Church, and of the 20th century Serbian saint, St. Nikolai of Zhicha (Velimirovich)... one finds the same themes and interpretations. It is the consistent mind of the Church.
And I wasn't the one who brought up Fr. John Meyendorf as an Orthodox authority on Palamas. I merely pointed out that it is debatable what kind of grasp he had of St. Gregory's most important contributions to Orthodox doctrine -- those stemming from his debates with the Calabrian. And that debate is one that is very difficult to follow without a pretty sound knowledge of Greek and a most remarkable library.... or helpful essays like those of Fr. John R.
I'm curious, gentlemen.
I'm pretty convinced about what Kolokotronis and I (and some of the other Orthodox) are trying to do: convey to the respected Catholics on this forum that we do not share the same faith on original sin and its consequences and derivative implications (leaving it at that one point for now.)
How would you describe the fundamental point you are trying to convey? It sometimes seems to me that we are trying to be convinced that if we just understood Catholic doctrines and formulations correctly, we would find that they are the same as ours. At other times, it seems that we are trying to be convinced that if only we understood our own tradition's teachings properly, we'd find that they were the same as those of Catholicism.
There doesn't have to be a point -- just discussing things is interesting. But to the extent that there *is* a point from the Catholic "side", it's escaping me.
That would be easy save for the fact that the Church is full of sinners rather than saints, Agrarian, and is broken up and disunited.
Agreed, but then how was she any different from us? You will say: she was exempt from the original sin. And the Orthodox will say "what original sin?" And at that point we are back on square one.
" This sounds very New Agey"
First time I've been accused of that! :)
I think you misunderstood what I was saying, my friend.
You know, I just read a thread on the News and Activism section in which Campion and Pyro are taking part about the Theotokos. It has a number of protestants on it. It occured to me that if this gang here were over there, we'd all be on the same side versus the prods.
The point:
Children come into the world devoid of grace, justice, and the life of God.
Yes or no.
That is very easy to understand because it is within us to feel and know without words and scholastic rationalizations. That is also unchanging. It is irrelevant if she is called a Saint or a Queen, or if she was conceived without a "spot." She was a necessary link to our salvation and in that we owe her our utmost reverence and gratitude.
Orthodox approach to this is: there are many unbaptized children who die. Whether they go to heaven or not is up to God. God certainly has other means avilable which are not known to us.
Mark 16:16 very clearly states:
I think this applied to adults, since infants cannot believe. Various references to children in the NT seem to suggest so that they would be saved (i.e. Matthew 18:3).
They have nothing to repent for. They have not on their own been ungreatful to God. But they also cannot on their own come to God. But saving them in that state would make them "robots". Faced with such dilemma maybe it's best to remain silent on this ansd trust in our Lord's mercy.
An infant is born into the world sick in both soul and body, desperately needing a physician. How do *you* suppose that Christ is going to look at that child: as an enemy or a friend? Or would the distinction or classification be a meaningless one to Christ?
The point:
Children come into the world devoid of grace, justice, and the life of God.
Yes or no.
As with so many things, this is a question I can't imagine being asked within our phronema, and I'm frankly unable and unwilling to answer it. This is a typical dialectal Catholic question (or Protestant -- they got it from you guys.)
Predictably, I will quote to you from the prayers appointed to be said for mother and child by the priest shortly after a child is born -- the infant is unbaptized at this point:
Preserve her and this child which she hath borne.
O Master, Lord our God, who wast born of our all-pure Lady, the Theotokos, and ever virgin Mary, and as a babe didst lie in a manger, and as a little child wast held in arms: Show mercy also upon this thy servant, who today hath borne this child; and forgive her sins, both voluntary and involuntary; and perserve her from every oppression of the Devil; and preserve the child which hath been born of her from every spell and perplexity, from every storn of adversity, and from evil spirits, whether of the day or of the night.
...have mercy upon her and upon the child, according to thy great mercy...
And grant that the child that hath been born of her may do reverence to the earthly temple which thou hast prepared to glorify thy holy Name.
Your turn: enemy or friend? Or more to the point, object of wrath, or object or love and compassion? Is the child treated as someone who is in a "state of being at enmity with God and deprived of his grace, justice and holiness?" Or again are all of these questions and distinctions irrelevant?
Here are some more prayers used in the Greek Orthodox Church for the churching of the child at about the 40th day after birth:
Touching the child's head, the priest says,"Bless also this child which has been born of her; increase it sanctify it, give it understanding and a prudent and virtuous' mind; for You alone have brought it into being, and have shown him (her) the light which bodily sense perceives, so that he (she) might be accounted worthy also of the ideal light and be numbered with Your holy Flock; through Your Only; Begotten Son, with Whom You are blessed, together with Your All; Holy, Good and Life; creating Spirit, both now and ever, and to the ages of ages. Amen.
and:
"O Lord our God, Who on the fortieth day was brought as a child into the Temple of the Law by Mary, the Virgin Bride and Your holy Mother, and was carried in the arms of the righteous Symeon, do You also, Sovereign Master All-Powerful, bless this presented babe that it may appear before You, the Creator of all things. And do You increase in him (her) every good work acceptable to You, removing from him (her) every opposing might by the sign of the likeness of Your Cross; for You are He Who guards infants, O Lord. So that, accounted worthy of holy Baptism, he (she) may obtain the portion of Your Elect of the Kingdom, being protected with us by the Grace of the Holy Consubstantial and Undivided Trinity. For unto You do we send up Glory, Honor and Worship, with Your Eternal Father and Your All; Holy, Good and Life-creating Spirit, both now and ever, and to the ages of ages. Amen."
and:
"O God, the Father Almighty, Who by the loud; voice Prophet Isaiah has foretold to us the incarnation from a Virgin of Your Only; Begotten Son and our God; Who in the latter days, by Your good pleasure and by the cooperation of the Holy Spirit have willed, through measureless love, to become a child of her for the salvation of men; and, according to the custom of Your Holy Law, after the fulfillment of the days of purification, submitted to be brought into the Sanctuary, being Himself a true lawgiver, and willed to be carried in the arms of the righteous Symeon, of which mystery we have a prototype declared in the aforementioned Prophet by the taking of coals with tongs from the Altar, and of which we Faithful also have an imitation in Grace. Do You, Who are He that watches over babes, Yourself, O Lord, bless (+) this child, together with its parents and sponsors, and account it worthy, at the fitting time, to be born again of water and the Spirit. Number it with Your holy Flock of rational sheep, who are called by the Name of Your Christ. For You are He that dwells on high, and gives regard to the things which are lowly, and to You do we send up glory: to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, both now and ever, and to the ages of ages. Amen."
And finally:
Then, taking up the child, the Priest lifts it up in the sign of the Cross before the Gates of the Temple, saying:
"The servant of God (Name) is churched, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen."
And he carries the child into the Holy Temple, saying:
"I will go into Your House. I will worship toward Your Holy Temple in fear of You."
Coming to the center of the church, he says:
"The servant of God (Name) is churched, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen. In the midst of the congregation I will sing praises to You."
Then he brings the child before the Doors of the Altar, saying:
The servant of God (Name) is churched, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
If the child is male the Priest carries him into the Altar if a female, the child is carried only as far as the Holy Doors. He then says:
"Lord, now let Your servant depart in peace, according to Your word; for my eyes have seen Your salvation, which You have prepared before the face of all people, a Light to enlighten the Gentiles, and the Glory of Your people of Israel."
Apolysis
"Glory to You, O our God and our hope, glory to You.
He Who submitted to be carried in the arms of the righteous Symeon, Christ our true God, through the intercessions of His pure and spotless Mother, through the power of the precious and life-giving Cross, through the protection of the venerable and bodiless heavenly Powers, through the prayers of the venerable and glorious prophet and Forerunner John the Baptist, of the holy, glorious, all; praiseworthy Apostles, of the holy, glorious and victorious Martyrs, of our venerable Godbearing Fathers, of the holy, righteous ancestors of the Lord, Joakim and Anna, (of the Saint of the church), and of all the Saints, have mercy on us and save us as our Good and Loving God.
Through the prayers of the Holy Fathers Oh Jesus Christ, Our God, have mercy on us and save us. Amen."
After the Amen, the priest makes the sign of the Cross over the forehead, mouth, and chest of the child, invoking the name of the Holy Trinity. He then returns the child to the mother.
This all occurs before Baptism and is not part of that sacrament. No enemy of God here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.