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)
You should have been. Mary's mediation is the reason the Holy Fathers dogmatized our need for recourse to her prayers and intercession.
"The Lord, the apostles and the prophets have taught us that we must venerate in the first place the Holy Mother of God, who is above all the heavenly powers ... If any one does not confess that the holy, ever virgin Mary, really and truly the Mother of God, is higher than all creatures visible and invisible, and does not implore, with a sincere faith, her intercession, given her powerful access to our God born of her, let him be anathema." (Second Council of Nicaea, Session 4)
"Omnes cum Petro ad Jesum per Mariam." You never heard this, or the briefer "Ad Jesum per Mariam" in 12 years of Catholic schooling? We have a feast on May 31, "Mary Mediatrix of All Graces". This is the teaching of the Fathers, both Latin and Greek and Syraic speaking. I prompted MarMema on this a couple of years ago regarding the doctrine being central to the though of St. Gregory Palamas, for example. Fr. Meyendorff's book introducing the thought of St. Gregory is very explicit on this point, as were his followers.
"No divine gifts can reach either angels or men, save through her mediation. As one cannot enjoy the light of a lamp....save through the medium of this lamp, so every movement towards God, every impulse towards good coming from him, is unrealizable save through the mediation of the Virgin. She does not cease to spread benefits on all creatures, not only on us men, but on the celestial, incorporeal ranks." (St. Gregory Palamas, Sermons on the Annunciation)
"She receives wholly the hidden grace of the Spirit and amply distributes it and shares it with others, thus manifesting it .... The Mother of him who through his unspeakable goodness willed to be called our brother is the dispenser and distributor of all the wondrous uncreated gifts of the divine Spirit, which make us Christ’s brother and co-heirs, not only because she is granting the gifts of her natural Son to his brothers in grace, but also because she is bestowing them on these as her own true sons, though not by ties of nature but of grace." (Theophanes of Nicaea, Sermons on the Most Holy Theotokos)
This was hardly new to them. St. Germanus of Constantinople, says seven centuries earlier:
"No one is saved except through you, O Theotokos; no one secured a gift of mercy, save through you....in you all peoples of the earth have obtained a blessing..." (Homily on the Dormition)
Pope Leo XIII, for but a single example, clearly expressed these truths many times, quoting several Fathers along the way.
"Wherefore We first of all give profound thanks to God, the Giver of all good things, and we shall continue as long as life lasts to cherish in mind and heart gratitude for each and every favour. And next, there comes to Our mind the sweet remembrance of the motherly protection of the august Queen of Heaven; and this memory likewise We shall cherish and preserve inviolate, ever thanking her and proclaiming her benefits. From her, as from an abundant spring, are derived the streams of heavenly graces. "In her hand are the treasures of the mercies of the Lord" (St. John-Damascene, Sermon I. on the Nativity of the blessed Virgin). "God wisheth her to be the beginning of all good things" (St. Irenaeus, Contra Valen., J. iii., cap. 33). In the love of this tender mother, which We have constantly striven to cherish and to grow in day by day, We confidently hope that We may end Our life." (Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Diuturni Temporis Spatium, 1)
"The recourse we have to Mary in prayer follows upon the office she continuously fills by the side of the throne of God as Mediatrix of Divine grace; being by worthiness and by merit most acceptable to Him, and, therefore, surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven. ... No man can meditate upon these without feeling a new awakening in his heart of confidence that he will certainly obtain through Mary the fulness of the mercies of God. And to this end vocal prayer chimes well with the Mysteries. First, as is meet and right, comes the Lord's Prayer, addressed to Our Father in Heaven: and having, with the elect petitions dictated by Our Divine Master, called upon the Father, from the throne of His Majesty we turn our prayerful voices to Mary. Thus is confirmed that law of merciful meditation of which We have spoken, and which St. Bernardine of Siena thus expresses: "Every grace granted to man has three degrees in order; for by God it is communicated to Christ, from Christ it passes to the Virgin, and from the Virgin it descends to us." And we, by the very form of the Rosary, do linger longest, and, as it were, by preference upon the last and lowest of these steps, repeating by decades the Angelic Salutation, so that with greater confidence we may thence attain to the higher degrees-that is, may rise, by means of Christ, to the Divine Father. For if thus we again and again greet Mary, it is precisely that our failing and defective prayers may be strengthened with the necessary confidence; as though we pledged her to pray for us, and as it were in our name, to God." (Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Iucunda Semper Expectatione, 2 and 5)
"The Eternal Son of God, about to take upon Him our nature for the saving and ennobling of man, and about to consummate thus a mystical union between Himself and all mankind, did not accomplish His design without adding there the free consent of the elect Mother, who represented in some sort all human kind, according to the illustrious and just opinion of St. Thomas, who says that the Annunciation was effected with the consent of the Virgin standing in the place of humanity.(5) With equal truth may it be also affirmed that, by the will of God, Mary is the intermediary through whom is distributed unto us this immense treasure of mercies gathered by God, for mercy and truth were created by Jesus Christ.(6) Thus as no man goeth to the Father but by the Son, so no man goeth to Christ but by His Mother. How great are the goodness and mercy revealed in this design of God! What a correspondence with the frailty of man! We believe in the infinite goodness of the Most High, and we rejoice in it; we believe also in His justice and we fear it. We adore the beloved Saviour, lavish of His blood and of His life; we dread the inexorable Judge. Thus do those whose actions have disturbed their consciences need an intercessor mighty in favour with God, merciful enough not to reject the cause of the desperate, merciful enough to lift up again towards hope in the divine mercy the afflicted and the broken down. Mary is this glorious intermediary; she is the mighty Mother of the Almighty; but-what is still sweeter-she is gentle, extreme in tenderness, of a limitless loving-kindness. As such God gave her to us." (Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Octobri Mense Adventante, 4)
Is that "simply"? "I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel" (Gen. 3:15).
jb6 picked up on something that I chose not to address with my initial post. It is not really true that the Orthodox Church hasn't convened ecumenical councils -- they just haven't called them that, presumably out of the same motivation that the Orthodox Church has never made a bishop of Rome and called him the Patriarch of Rome.
Fr. John Romanides makes a strong case for other councils that meet criteria for being Ecumenical in the Orthodox Church. Whatever one calls them, they are quite reliable expressions of the mind of the Church.
The Anglican author in question seems to be quite influenced by Vatican II. It is rarely talked about that Vatican II was an unusual council in that it really had no pressing dogmatic issues, but seems to have purely pastoral in nature.
From an Orthodox perspective, my question to those who would criticize the Orthodox for not convening ecumenical councils -- what heresy or heresies should these councils have been called to address? Calling an ecumenical council just to prove that one can do it is a bit like having a Pope make an infallible declaration ex cathedra on something that all Catholics believe anyway -- just to demonstrate that he can do it...
Don't remember that one, is that a new feast? I only remember the May Crowning of the statue of Mary where we would sing
Immaculate Mary, your praises we sing; You reign now in splendor with Jesus our King. Ave, ave, ave, Maria! Ave, ave, Maria!
In heaven, the blessed your glory proclaim; On earth we, your children, invoke your sweet name. Ave, ave, ave, Maria! Ave, ave, Maria!
We pray for the Church, our true Mother on earth, And beg you to watch o'er the land of our birth. Ave, ave, ave, Maria! Ave, ave, Maria!
Of course we were taught to adore Mary. Without her we wouldn't have Jesus. She is our mother, because she is the mother of our Savior. We can ask her for help (and believe me I do) but I'm sorry, I just don't remember being taught that I can't ask Jesus to help me without getting an ok from Mary first.
I'm thinking maybe I am not the best student though.
I went to Catholic school before Vatican II, earlier than each of you I'll wager. I never, ever, heard that the only way to Christ was through Panagia. I also never heard such a thing in Orthodoxy save the comment by +Gregory Palamas. I respect his opinion; it may theolougemma (I doubt even that) but it is not by any means the dogma or doctrine of the Orthodox Church. As for Fr. Meyendorf, well I guess he has his opinions, but they are nothing more than that.
As for the feast you mentioned, HC, it must be some sort of VII innovation, either that or the Irish Sisters of Mercy didn't celebrate it; May Crowning, yes. I even remember parts of the hymn we used to sing at it. It was quite nice. To the best of my knowledge, at least in the 80s when I was president of the local school board for one of the Roman Catholic parishes, neither the feast you mention nor the May Crowning were celebrated then.
HC:
From the Baltimore Catechism the nuns used with me:
"439. How does the Church by means of indulgences remit the temporal punishment due to sin?
The Church by means of indulgences remits the temporal punishment due to sin by applying to us from her spiritual treasury part of the infinite satisfaction of Jesus Christ and of the superabundant satisfaction of the Blessed Virgin Mary and of the saints.
For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, himself man, Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all, bearing witness in his own time. (I Timothy 2:5-6)
440. What is the superabundant satisfaction of the Blessed Virgin Mary and of the saints?
The superabundant satisfaction of the Blessed Virgin Mary and of the saints is that which they gained during their lifetime but did not need, and which the Church applies to their fellow members of the communion of saints. "
Actually, it was established before Vatican II.
I was 10 when VII closed (1965) so you're probably older than I since we had electric lights then :)
The Irish Ursuline nuns taught nothing like Mary being the only way to Jesus back then either. I got caught in the beginning of the VII implementation in 8th grade though. The poor nuns having to change to those short habits and their beautiful crucifixes changed to small crosses and guitar masses etc.
High School was with Josephites and I don't have such good memories of them I'm sorry to say
"Actually, it was established before Vatican II."
Thanks for the G2. I guess the word hadn't gotten from Italy to my part of the US by the 1950s! I did run a Google Search on "Mary Mediatrix of All Graces" and found some pretty odd stuff. The odd stuff aside, I was amused (actually I was astinished) by the silly attempts made by some writers to justify this concept by quoting from the Orthodox Akathist Hymn. I think we may have found another rather profound difference between Orthodoxy and the Latin Church.
In Serbia, and it is used synonimously in the exact fashion as in Georgia. A "believer" (vernik or vyernik) is always involved in the church -- physically or spiritually. It doesn't mean someone who just believes but someone who lives the faith.
No he wasn't. When was he made into a saint? What are the earliest references to him as a saint? In fact what is the earliest usage of the term?
Especially when it comes to St. Gregory Palamas. Even if someone is not a fan of Fr. John Romanides, it is an interesting exercise to read Fr. Meyendorf on Palamas, and then read Fr. Romanides' two devastating review-essays that were published originally in the Greek Orthodox Theological Review (Holy Cross Seminary). A major difference between Meyendorf and Romanides is that the former was educated in the cerebral Paris school and had little or no contact with real monasticism, whereas the latter always remained connected with Greek monastic life.
I certainly am in no position to pass judgment on either scholar, rank amateur that I am, but Fr. Romanides seems to "get" St. Gregory and the thinking of the Greek monastic tradition:
In the Orthodox Church, we still baptize infants for the same reason -- as we baptize all people: to bring them into the Church, where they can grow in the faith.
For it is wholly immaterial at which time you come into the church; every new patized Christian is a "spiritual infant." Baptism is a form of exorcism, where the new member is given the opportunity, through this sacrament, to renounce the devil and accept Christ. It's our accpetance of Christ that gives us a chance to cooperate with His Grace.
We hold that the reason we are outside of church when we are born is because of our fallen nature, for which our ancestral parents were responsible. We broke away from God's life-giving energy and died. God did not deprive us of His Grace. We did.
The reason I said that Latins teach that God deprives us of Grace is because of the Immaculate Conception. In this instance, God chooses to infuse Mary with Grace at the moment of her conception, which makes her a stranger to sin but does not change her human nature. In other words, she was destined to theosis by God's own doing, and not of her own free will.
The only thing we can conclude, assuming the IC is correct, is that God by His own will deliberately depirves the rest of us of His Grace as He deliberately infused mary with it.
If the Latin Church denies that God deliberately filled Mary and deprives others of His Grace, then the IC was an accident, and not an act of God.
""Ancient" is usually going to be more credible than anything in this century. Look at Kolokotronis - he's pretty darn credible"
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!The 19th century was very good to my family!!
Sure, our spiritual mother, but He did not say my mother.
That is news. Where does it say that He willed that?
That is the western idea of God's justice which, as I said before, agreeing with prof. Kalomiros's assertion, is based on human concept of justice.
Unable to repent or change, after death we are at God's mercy. Teaching us the evil of sin at that point is rather pointless, don't you think?
Forgive my ignorance, but I don't follow.
+John Chrysostomos didn't teach this, from the Baltimore Catechism:
" Q. Why is this sin called original?
A. This sin is called original because it comes down to us from our first parents, and we are brought into the world with its guilt on our soul.
49. Q. Does this corruption of our nature remain in us after original sin is forgiven.
A. This corruption of our nature and other punishments remain in us after original sin is forgiven. "
If Blessed Augustine is saying that +John Chrysostomos believed in what the Latin Church now calls Original Sin, +Augustine was wrong (and as we all know, he didn't understand, or least understand it well). I'm seeing a pattern here.
"If Blessed Augustine is saying that +John Chrysostomos believed in what the Latin Church now calls Original Sin, +Augustine was wrong (and as we all know, he didn't understand, or least understand it well)."
I mean Greek! Sorry!
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.