Posted on 06/14/2003 3:01:28 PM PDT by Class of 78
[Catholic author Patrick Madrid, Publisher of Envoy Magazine, writes:]
In a recent issue of San Diego News Notes there appeared an interview with Paul O'Callaghan, a former cradle Catholic who abandonded the Church to become an Orthodox priest.
I found his rationale for leaving the Church in an attempt to find Tradition to be theologically naive. His sometimes inaccurate perceptions about the Catholic Church and its teachings were also problematic. But the biggest dissapointment was his distorted understanding of how the early Church viewed the function and authority of the Bishop of Rome:
"The Orthodox view the role of the bishop of Rome as being 'first among equals' of all the bishops of the Church. In this sense, Rome is to play a special role in upholding the apostolic tradition. Rome also functioned in the early Church as a final 'court of appeal' in disputes, as she was the primatial See. When the pope exalted himself and claimed, 'I am tradition,' as opposed to being responsible for upholding tradition, this broke with tradition and eventually shattered the unity of the Church. When the papacy claimed automatic divine approbation for its dogmatic pronouncements, it usurped the prerogative of the whole body of Christ, and subverted the ecclesiology of communion. It is impossible for the modern papacy to be reconciled with Orthodoxy, a point that many Roman Catholics have difficulty understanding."
That's standard rhetoric from Orthodox apologists, which one would expect, but this fanciful notion of a "primus inter pares" model of the papacy in the early Church simply doesn't square with the historical evidence to the contrary. True, the pope was always considered the one to whom a "final appeal" would be made, but he was also recognized -- East and West -- as considerably more than that.
For examples of such evidence, see Russell Shaw's Papal Primacy in the Third Millennium, or J. Michael Miller's The Shepherd and the Rock, Steve Ray's Upon This Rock, or Jesus, Peter and the Keys by Dave Hess et al., or my books Why Is That in Tradition? and Pope Fiction. In them you'll get copious, detailed examples of patristic statements -- many from the Eastern Fathers -- that utterly disprove Fr. O'Callaghan's theory.
I met Father Paul O'Callaghan in September 1988 when I was still a Lutheran pastor. We became close friends. Father Paul received me into the Orthodox church in July, 1991. (He was pastor of St. George's Orthodox church in City Heights for nine years.)
Having been brought up as a Roman Catholic, he left Catholicism for the reasons he states below. I, having had no religious commitment as a child, persevering in the search for truth, found Eastern Orthodoxy to be a stepping stone to the fullness of truth in the Catholic faith. So we were like ships passing.
Father Paul is a speaker and writer. He has recently authored a book, The Feast Of Friendship (Eighth Day Books, 2002).
I agree with Father Paul regarding the Novus Ordo Mass and the mentality which spawned it and keeps it going. He is wrong, though, in seeing this mentality as "consistent with the nature of Catholicism." It is an aberration.
I take exception to the statement that the real difference between Orthodoxy and Catholicism is the doctrine of grace. The Byzantine and Latin doctrines on grace are complementary, not contradictory. This complementarity is what Pope John Paul meant by the Church "breathing with both lungs." The real difference remains our being subject to the universal primacy of the Roman Pontiff, whom the Orthodox view as an oppressive, alien power.
Father Paul, would you summarize the essential theme of your book, Feast of Friendship?
In our modern Western cultural setting, we often take friendships for granted and underestimate their significance in our lives. In actuality, friendship is one of the most important forms of love that we experience. Friendship is a communion of persons in love and freedom, which is precisely the nature of God. Christian friendships in particular foster our moral development and growth into the divine likeness. They also are a tremendous source of creativity, and facilitate the contemplation of the Good, the True and the Beautiful. Finally, friendships prefigure the Feast that is the everlasting kingdom of God.
How did you come to see the need for this special study?
It began in several different ways. My first ideas really had to do with the unique situation of being a parish priest. During their training, priests are often warned about the dangers of friendships with parishioners. I took this advice seriously, but I was never able to abide by it. Eventually, while recognizing its practicality, I came to see this stipulation as dehumanizing. I had made great friends in my parishes and I treasured them. Beyond that, I saw that I actually conducted much of my ministry in the mode of friendship. What justified this?
The second strand derived from my personal experiences with good friendships. Certain phenomena seemed extraordinary to me. I did not have the tools to interpret or understand those experiences. So friendship became an area of research for me.
Lastly, I saw the deep theological implications of Christian friendship. I was not aware of any attempt to expound a theology of friendship, and saw how the Orthodox tradition offered the categories for interpreting friendship theologically. I thought that I could give a theological account of friendship in a way that had not been done before. So I went to work and tried to integrate these themes cohesively.
What further work in this field would you like to see done?
I think more could be done in delineating a psychology of friendship. My book discusses some themes, but I am a layman in this regard, and I think those with better training could provide more substantial and scholarly accounts.
Please tell us about your upbringing as a Roman Catholic. What was your family life like, parochial school education, etc?
It was a completely Catholic life. We hardly knew anyone who wasn't Catholic. There was not one case of divorce among the parents of the friends I grew up with. Abstinence on Fridays, the rosary, regular attendance at Mass and Benediction, novenas, 40 hours devotions, spiritual bouquets -- all these were typical features of my family's life. My grandfather attended Mass every day. Other than being Irish Catholics, we were typical California suburbanites of the late '50s and '60s. It was an interesting time and place to grow up. I attended parochial school from second grade through high school. About 1966 or so we began seeing the new breed of priests and nuns, who were young, played folk guitar and things like that. Prior to that, our Catholicism was of the strict Tridentine variety. By the early seventies, many of the priests and nuns that had taught us were abandoning their vows and leaving religious life. It was like an epidemic. The stable Catholic world we had know was unraveling in near-complete cynicism.
Were you taught the Catholic vision of the Church as the ecclesiastical monarchy established by Jesus Christ, visibly headed by the successor of Peter?
Of course. "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church" was drilled into our heads. We were taught, and became utterly convinced, that the Roman Catholic Church was the one true Church. As a child, I couldn't understand why that wasn't obvious to everyone.
What transpired, externally and internally, to lead you away from the perception that the Catholic Church is the one true Church of Christ?
It was the Novus Ordo -- the "New Mass." It is important to understand that the Novus Ordo was much more than the revised rite of the Mass. It is much more comprehensive than that. It was the attempt to impose an utterly new way of being Catholic. Although the people did not call for it, many clergy were eager to trash tradition. Images were hauled out of churches, altar rails torn out, the mode of receiving communion altered, the Friday fast abrogated, fasting for Communion minimalized, Latin abandoned, the minor orders abolished, the altar replaced by a table, prayer facing east eliminated, and recently female acolytes introduced. Many of these represented radical alterations of universal Christian tradition. The entire ethos of Catholicism as we had known it was phased out of existence. It was replaced by new Catholicism that scholars figured would be more palatable to "modern man." Every attempt was made to replace the sense of the sacred, the transcendent, and the mystical with an atmosphere of casual informality.
The ambience of the Novus Ordo is chatty, relaxed, and utterly banal. It does not cultivate reverence for a glorious God, but a good feeling about being human in a contrived "community." I felt the artificiality of the new rite immediately. It was apparent that it was not generated by the living consciousness of the Church, but was a creation of committees. It lacked beauty, depth, and spirituality. The new church buildings it spawned were remarkable only for their ugliness and lack of inspiration. Eventually I found I could no longer stand the artificiality and banality of Novus Ordo Catholicism. I began to look elsewhere.
What led you to embrace Eastern Orthodoxy?
At first I felt that the Novus Ordo was some kind of aberration within Roman Catholicism. As time went on, I began to understand that it is entirely consistent with the very nature of Roman Catholicism. Ever since the schism with the Eastern Patriarchates, Rome has pursued a course of innovation with regard to the Tradition based on rational analysis and deduction. The Novus Ordo was but the most recent example. Finally, I came to the conclusion that wherever Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism differed, Orthodoxy had preserved the original tradition of the undivided Church, and Roman Catholicism had strayed from it.
Of course, because of my background, converting to Orthodoxy was difficult. It took a couple of years for me to work through it. In the end, I felt I would be more in communion with my fathers worshipping as an Orthodox Christian than I would be as a Novus Ordo Catholic.
What education did you have in your preparation for priesthood?
I received a Bachelor of Arts in Religious Studies from California State University, Chico, in 1977, and a Master of Divinity from Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology in Brookline, MA in 1980.
How long were you pastor at St. George, San Diego?
I was pastor of St. George Orthodox Church in San Diego for nine years -- January 1, 1984 to January 1, 1993.
What special memories do you have of San Diego and your ministry at St.George?
My strongest memory of San Diego and St. George is actually not a memory, but more of a feeling, so to speak. Although I grew up in the San Francisco Bay Area, after a couple of years of living in San Diego, it really became home to me. I have lived in Los Angeles, Boston, Northern California, and here in Wichita, Kansas. But I refer to San Diego in Rush Limbaugh's terms as "my adopted hometown." It would be a joy to return to live in San Diego again. I loved it there.
The congregation of St. George grew incredibly diverse during my years of ministry. It included a core of Arab-Americans born of Lebanese/Syrian background, immigrant families from Palestine and Jordan, Egyptians and Ethiopians, as well as Anglo-Americans of all varieties. Holding everybody together was challenging, but everyone was friendly and hospitable.
How many converts to Orthodoxy at St. George did you bring in?
Honestly, I really can't remember. I didn't ever count them when I was there. They just became a part of the parish family like everybody else.
How many of these were Catholics? How many Protestants (including Episcopalians)?
Again, for the reasons stated above, I really can't say for sure. The majority were certainly Protestant. I can't specifically remember receiving anyone who was Roman Catholic, but some of them might have been.
When Protestants converted, what did they say drew them to Eastern Orthodoxy?
Like most converts to Orthodoxy, they were on the search for the "true Church." They were looking for doctrinal, liturgical, and moral stability in faithfulness to biblical standards. They perceived their Protestant denominations to be adrift in one or more of those areas. Orthodoxy represented continuity and fidelity to the apostolic tradition for them.
What did they tell you induced them to become Orthodox and not Catholic?
Many Protestants have a visceral reaction to anything Roman Catholic. I have been told by a number of them that they would never consider becoming Roman Catholic. The papacy is definitely a stumbling block to those who have been reared in the Protestant ethos. They cannot understand Roman Catholic ecclesiology, and in some cases, are viscerally hostile to Catholic doctrine in general -- without understanding it. So they looked first at Orthodoxy without even considering Catholicism in many cases. Others perceived Roman Catholicism to be adrift in the same way Protestant churches are. They understood that Western Christianity is more of a piece than differentiated, in that both Roman Catholicism and Protestantism are dominated by a rationalistic approach to faith. So for them, Roman Catholicism could not offer a solution.
What relations, good or bad, did you have with Catholics in San Diego,including the Catholic Eastern Rites?
I didn't have much contact with Roman Catholics during my tenure in San Diego. When a Maronite mission was started there, somehow I ended up being in contact with the priest, Father Dennis, who was a liturgical scholar from Notre Dame. We got together socially a few times, and it was very nice. The only problem I had was with people who would bounce back and forth between our parish and the Maronite mission. This was not the fault of San Diego Catholics, but of some of our own people. So the scant relations I had were good ones.
Would you agree with the view that the only real difference between Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism is the papacy, all other differences being either derivative or fabricated? If not, why?
No. The real difference is in what each tradition teaches about grace. Orthodoxy teaches that grace is the uncreated energy of God poured forth on man. Roman Catholicism teaches that grace is created -- God causes certain effects in the mind and soul of man. This in turn, affects what each tradition means by theology. For Orthodoxy, theology is begotten in the divine illumination of the soul -- man is permeated by the uncreated grace of God and speaks forth from that. In Roman Catholicism, theology is a matter of discursive reasoning about propositions derived from either natural or revealed sources. The teachings regarding the papacy and all of the other uniquely Roman Catholic dogmas have their source in this. Thus in spirit and in form they are alien to Orthodoxy.
Is there any sense in which you, as an Orthodox, would assent to the universal government; universal fatherhood if you will, of the Roman Pontiff?
No. The Orthodox view the role of the bishop of Rome as being "first among equals" of all the bishops of the Church. In this sense, Rome is to play a special role in upholding the apostolic tradition. Rome also functioned in the early Church as a final "court of appeal" in disputes, as she was the primatial See. When the pope exalted himself and claimed, "I am tradition," as opposed to being responsible for upholding tradition, this broke with tradition and eventually shattered the unity of the Church. When the papacy claimed automatic divine approbation for its dogmatic pronouncements, it usurped the prerogative of the whole body of Christ, and subverted the ecclesiology of communion. It is impossible for the modern papacy to be reconciled with Orthodoxy, a point that many Roman Catholics have difficulty understanding.
The Russian theologian Vladimir Soloviev wrote to his fellow Eastern Orthodox Christians, "We must recognize ourselves for what we are in reality, an organic part of the great body of Christendom, and affirm our intimate solidarity with our western brethren who possess the central organ (i.e. the papacy) which we lack. This (is a necessary) moral act of justice and charity." Would you comment, from your present perspective, on this?
I don't think many Orthodox would agree with Soloviev being called a "theologian." His Orthodoxy is questionable. Calling him a "Russian religious thinker" would be more accurate, as one would describe Berdayev, for instance. It is indeed morally imperative to recognize what unites Orthodox and Roman Catholics: faith in Jesus Christ, the Holy Trinity, the sacraments, the veneration of the Virgin, and so on. Certainly what unites us is greater than what divides us. But is also a "necessary moral act" to be honest about what divides us -- why, in fact, we are not in communion.
The centralized monarchial administration of the papal system definitely has pragmatic efficiencies that are lacking in the Orthodox world. Orthodoxy is often characterized by disorganization and lack of inter-cooperation. In Roman Catholicism, the tight system of worldwide government produces an imposing institutional unity. Plus, the pope as a figurehead plays very well in the modern media environment, as John Paul II has shown so effectively.
However impressive the institutional unity of the Roman Catholic Church may be, there is far more unity in the Orthodox Church in matters of faith, morality, and liturgical life. "Dissenting theologians" are unknown. There is a spiritual unity among the Orthodox that wells up from within the life of Holy Tradition that is incomprehensible to Catholics who relate to the pope and bishops as external authorities, to whom they either assent or dissent.
What do you think of Pope John Paul II's statement that the Church must breathe with both her lungs, eastern and western?
The Church must breathe with the breath of God, that is, the Holy Spirit. This is what is essential to her very being. As long as the Church lives in the Holy Spirit, divine and uncreated grace is active in her, and she produces God-bearing saints. There is no question of East and West, but only the "theanthropic" organism that is the body of Christ. If the papacy will humble itself before Christ, the true head of the Church, and return to the confession of Orthodoxy, then the life-giving Spirit will breathe freely in the churches of the West again. This will result in deliverance from the spirit of rationalism and a flowering of traditional Christian holiness in them.
And he was correct. There were five patriarchs...and the patriarch of Rome was a usurper. There are no Scriptures assigning the bishop of Rome to his current position.
Matthew 16:18-19 - When Jesus gave the keys to the kingdom to Simon Peter he used two different words in Greek to refer to the building of the church. He called Peter a [petros] - a stone; Jesus referred to Himsef as [petra] - a large rock outcropping or hugh stone. It is as if Jesus called himseld Half Dome in Yosemite Park, and Peter was a rock at the base of the cliff. Jesus was saying that He was going to build the Church upon Himself, not Peter...a bad interpretation perpetuated by the Roman Catholic Church for centuries!
The Papacy has no right to change or add on or do anything to change that which was already decided by itself. That is the origin of the schisim and why the Latin Catholics were KICKED out of Orthodoxy (what the Pope did was no different than what Luther did).
Christianity as we can see was not an authoriatrian thing. It had its traditions in a democratic/republican form to decide it's fate. It had no charsimatic prophet to lead it like a dictator. The Ecclessia, through her Apostolic designated leaders would collectively come to conclusions with the Holy Spirit guiding the vote.
Is this not just another version of Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand" that also makes our democracy as succesful as it is, by allowing the majority to guide correct choices and policies as opposed to the command economy like religious authority of the Papacy?
At any rate some good writings to help those outside the church better understand our views of authority, the Holy Trinity and the nature of Christian fellowship in Eastern Orthodoxy are available on my FR page -
"The Conciliar Nature of the Orthodox Church"
"An Introduction to the Eastern Christian Mind"
I highly recommend the Tolstoy story which I have posted on my page as well to those who are interested in the differences between eastern and western Christianity.
I really like the title of this book! I am going to suggest it for our church bookstore. I think it will be something I will greatly enjoy reading and I am sure you can easily understand why I say this. :-)
Incorrect. Jesus spoke Aramaic. In Aramaic the word rock is "kepha". The Greek masculine/feminine distinctions are irrelevant.
There are no Scriptures assigning the bishop of Rome to his current position.
Consider Isaiah 22:20-25. His oracle states there will be an abolition of the Old Testament high priests and the establishment of a new priesthood of the House of David. This priesthood is very specific.
On that day I will summon my servant Eliakim (means loyal to God), son of Hilkiah; I will clothe him with your robe, and gird him with your sash, and give over to him your authority. He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open.......etc.
That sounds quite similar to a NT passage:
Matthew 16:18-19 I for my part declare to you, you are 'Rock', and on this rock I will build my church, and the jaws of death shall not prevail against it. I will entrust to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you declare bound on earth shall be bound in heaven; whatever you declare loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
In Acts 15 Peter's final authority in matters regarding the Church is evidenced by "after Peter spoke, the assembly fell silent." The Apostles knew who had primacy.
The Roman Emperor Decius (249-251 A.D.) made the following remark after he had executed Pope Fabian in 250 A.D., "I would far rather receive news of a rival to the throne than of another bishop of Rome."
The Roman Emperors knew who the head of the Church was.
It is only the collective church meeting as a body that can claim infalibility because it is guided by the Holy Spirit. An individual can't claim infalibility least of all the man seated on the throne of St. Peter since St. Peter himself failed Christ not one but thrice.
What the Pope did then was become like Luther--inventing and adding on to the Church an idea which never was part of the church.
Someone did indeed break away from what Christianity is as defined by what the ecumenical councils said Christianity is. The Catholic Latins did--not the Orthodox and thus removed themselves from what the Church stands for. Tthe Orthodox did not leave the Church but rather threw out the heretical Latin Church.
Adding on to the 7 Ecumenical Councils pronouncements is a heresy by definition is it not?
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.