All for One

Prydain ^ | Will

[sionnsar]

From the Wall Street Journal, the Orthodox writer Frederica Mathewes-Green gives her perspective on the idea of unity between Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox, in All for One. She makes a number of good points, I think--including this:

From a Roman Catholic perspective, unity is created by the institution of the church. Within that unity there can be diversity; not everyone agrees with official teaching, some very loudly. What holds things together is membership. This kind of unity makes immediate sense to Americans: Whatever their disagreements, everyone salutes the flag, and all Catholics salute, if not technically obey, Rome's magisterium.

When Roman Catholics look at Orthodoxy, they don't see a centralized, global institution. Instead, the church appears to be a jumble of national and ethnic bodies (a situation even more confused in the U.S. as a result of immigration). To Catholics, the Orthodox Church looks like chaos.

But from an Orthodox perspective, unity is created by believing the same things. It's like the unity among vegetarians or Red Sox fans. You don't need a big bureaucracy to keep them faithful. Across wildly diverse cultures, Orthodox Christians show remarkable unity in their faith. (Of course there are plenty of power struggles and plain old sin, but the essential faith isn't challenged.) What's the source of this common faith? The consensus of the early church, which the Orthodox stubbornly keep following. That consensus was forged with many a bang and dent, but for the past millennium major questions of faith and morals have been pretty much at rest in the Eastern hemisphere.

From my perspective as an outsider to both traditions, I think she is correct: Rome's unity is largely based on the institution of the Papacy (although at the top there is indeed the basis for uniformity of belief--see the Catechism of the Catholic Church), and Orthodoxy's unity seems to be more based on a commonality of belief. Will this ever be resolved? It seems that a commonality of belief between the two communions will have to come first.

Posted by Will at 8 : 13 am | Leave a note {0}

[sionnsar]

ping

[NYer]

Interesting, albeit a tad simplistic. Pinging the Catholics and Orthodox for their input.

[sionnsar]

Oops. Re-posted...

[Iris7]

I have great sympathy for the Orthodox. The Idea of Rome, the Idea of Pope as Pontifex Maximus, is very much rejected by them. Not going to change.

Personally, I believe that the Roman system is a good one. Time tested. It recovered from the Babylonian Captivity, from the Borgias, from worldliness again and again. Also believe that the Pope is guided by the Holy Spirit, but not much, if any, more than anyone else.

It is necessary to pick Popes with strong spiritual lives, men with long devotion to the Word made Flesh. Men who have earnestly and productively sought the Holy Spirit. All too often this is honored more in the breach than in reality - notice many, many American bishops.

Popes are men, not gods, and should not be made into idols. God makes saints. Popes do not.

So, the Orthodox see Roman Catholicism as leaning toward idolatry, if not actively idolatrous. (Personally disagree that idolatry exists, certainly not as an aspect of dogma.)