the end of a blog-era
Well it seems that it is last call for debate over at Triumphications. I find it quite interesting that this occurs after several long threads in which the erudite and better read on the issues debated than his antagonists Steven Todd Kaster, an Eastern Catholic, offered arguments against papal primacy which agitated the übertriumphiles to such a degree that they could only respond with Scott Hahn level regurgitations of the Catholic rules. Some Eastern Catholics don't play by Latin rules and that earns them some fairly harsh language from those whose understanding of ecclesiastical diplomatispeak is informed more by Stuebenville style overt ultramontanism than by the Vatican's subtle ultramontanism of the last generation. Well, since the big Ponty's conversion to Rome the blog had become more and more of an apologetics site oriented towards those who were pretty much on their way to Rome anyway, but wanted some apologetic reassurance from a source that was popular but not pop. I followed the Orthodox/Catholic debate on the blog with interest, however, and sometimes entered the fray.
But ah, the glory days. I will miss the lively old blog because it was there that I saw for the first time young Orthodox intellectuals enter the ring with top notch Catholic intellectuals and not play the part of the weird cousin who rides the small bus to school. Perry Robinson, in particular, always held his own and occasionally handled the debate in such a way that his Catholic interlocutors, to use a technical phrase from my days on the high school debate team, had their asses handed to them. Watching Perry at work, while reading the likes of Bradshaw and Behr, and meeting more and more young Orthodox intellectuals, has convinced me that our days in the fever swamps of Christendom are over. Top tier Orthodox apologetics and polemics is becoming strong and vibrant. Our pop apologetics and paperback polemics will never match that of the Catholics in terms of volume or cultural efficiency, but I am increasingly not as worried about that as I was when I wrote the überfromm posts. I am an Ochlophobist. What do I care about popular apologetics? It seems that in the last year or so at Triumphications things began to get obscenely repetitive and intellectually crass. More and more of the commenters were polemics hacks and not even attempting serious debate. But I also sensed that the main Catholic voices tired of the fact the Orthodox would not back down, would not cheaply concede points which they did not have to, and kept a firm and steady rhetorical presence. I suppose the Catholics felt that this was a hindrance with regard to their task of getting Protestants to join the Catholic Church. Still, it is a tribute to the grand Ponty that despite his clearly triumphalist tendencies he allowed the Orthodox-Catholic debate to continue as long as it did. Now that it is over he can go after those homeless former or soon to be former Episcopalians with reckless abandon.
In retrospect, though I am not sure that Fr. Freeman would see it this way, I think that he and Perry made a great and unique tag team of sorts. Perry dealt with most of the hard apologetic issues, responding to Ponty and Mike L. and others, while Fr. Freeman presented a rhetorical picture of Orthodoxy lived, and could point out at just the right moment in an Orthodox-Catholic debate that our weaknesses are oft times our very strengths.
But it seems clear to me that something did not work as it was intended by the Pontificator. One of the basic premises of the blog was that on those areas where Catholicism and Orthodoxy agree, Protestantism must be wrong. That is sorta, kinda true, and a nice and easy way to approach things. Personally, I found the near obsession with proving Protestantism wrong a bit boring. But what I do not think that Pontificator expected was the strong Orthodox insistence that regarding a number of ecclesiological and theological issues central to the understanding of grace, the Church, and of the Holy Trinity, Orthodoxy and Catholicism are worlds apart. Surely some Catholic-Orthodox debate was expected, but it was not the intent of Pontificator to run a blog which is more famous for its Catholic-Orthodox debate than it is for its Catholic-Protestant debate. Furthermore, it goes without saying that a blog which has as its main purpose the assistance of Protestants converting to Catholicism (I think that many of the Catholics there assumed that it is mostly people who are slightly over aesthetish who convert to Orthodoxy) is not well served by a vigorous Orthodox-Catholic debate. It might make things confusing for humble souls who might otherwise just convert to Rome. Add to that mix an intelligent Eastern Catholic who does not share the ultramontanist faith of the rest of the Catholics there, and who points readers to information suggesting that a good number of Eastern Catholics are not ultramontanists, and let's face it, there might be some egg on some faces. That just simply is not good presentation in the world of Catholic evangelism. When you have to resort to calling someone as small "o" orthodox and as committed to the Church catholic as Steven Todd Kaster a dishonest heretic who is in league with Catholic progressives the situation has truly imploded. And since serious debate was essentially over at Triumphications, I must admit that I found the whole affair amusing.
It was an interesting, almost accidental meeting of Catholic and Orthodox minds in a contemporary setting. In the end, we found that we disagree over considerably more than we thought we did. Ah well, now that debate has ceased, we should all have a drink. Together at the pub that is, not together at the altar.
But ah, the glory days. I will miss the lively old blog because it was there that I saw for the first time young Orthodox intellectuals enter the ring with top notch Catholic intellectuals and not play the part of the weird cousin who rides the small bus to school. Perry Robinson, in particular, always held his own and occasionally handled the debate in such a way that his Catholic interlocutors, to use a technical phrase from my days on the high school debate team, had their asses handed to them. Watching Perry at work, while reading the likes of Bradshaw and Behr, and meeting more and more young Orthodox intellectuals, has convinced me that our days in the fever swamps of Christendom are over. Top tier Orthodox apologetics and polemics is becoming strong and vibrant. Our pop apologetics and paperback polemics will never match that of the Catholics in terms of volume or cultural efficiency, but I am increasingly not as worried about that as I was when I wrote the überfromm posts. I am an Ochlophobist. What do I care about popular apologetics? It seems that in the last year or so at Triumphications things began to get obscenely repetitive and intellectually crass. More and more of the commenters were polemics hacks and not even attempting serious debate. But I also sensed that the main Catholic voices tired of the fact the Orthodox would not back down, would not cheaply concede points which they did not have to, and kept a firm and steady rhetorical presence. I suppose the Catholics felt that this was a hindrance with regard to their task of getting Protestants to join the Catholic Church. Still, it is a tribute to the grand Ponty that despite his clearly triumphalist tendencies he allowed the Orthodox-Catholic debate to continue as long as it did. Now that it is over he can go after those homeless former or soon to be former Episcopalians with reckless abandon.
In retrospect, though I am not sure that Fr. Freeman would see it this way, I think that he and Perry made a great and unique tag team of sorts. Perry dealt with most of the hard apologetic issues, responding to Ponty and Mike L. and others, while Fr. Freeman presented a rhetorical picture of Orthodoxy lived, and could point out at just the right moment in an Orthodox-Catholic debate that our weaknesses are oft times our very strengths.
But it seems clear to me that something did not work as it was intended by the Pontificator. One of the basic premises of the blog was that on those areas where Catholicism and Orthodoxy agree, Protestantism must be wrong. That is sorta, kinda true, and a nice and easy way to approach things. Personally, I found the near obsession with proving Protestantism wrong a bit boring. But what I do not think that Pontificator expected was the strong Orthodox insistence that regarding a number of ecclesiological and theological issues central to the understanding of grace, the Church, and of the Holy Trinity, Orthodoxy and Catholicism are worlds apart. Surely some Catholic-Orthodox debate was expected, but it was not the intent of Pontificator to run a blog which is more famous for its Catholic-Orthodox debate than it is for its Catholic-Protestant debate. Furthermore, it goes without saying that a blog which has as its main purpose the assistance of Protestants converting to Catholicism (I think that many of the Catholics there assumed that it is mostly people who are slightly over aesthetish who convert to Orthodoxy) is not well served by a vigorous Orthodox-Catholic debate. It might make things confusing for humble souls who might otherwise just convert to Rome. Add to that mix an intelligent Eastern Catholic who does not share the ultramontanist faith of the rest of the Catholics there, and who points readers to information suggesting that a good number of Eastern Catholics are not ultramontanists, and let's face it, there might be some egg on some faces. That just simply is not good presentation in the world of Catholic evangelism. When you have to resort to calling someone as small "o" orthodox and as committed to the Church catholic as Steven Todd Kaster a dishonest heretic who is in league with Catholic progressives the situation has truly imploded. And since serious debate was essentially over at Triumphications, I must admit that I found the whole affair amusing.
It was an interesting, almost accidental meeting of Catholic and Orthodox minds in a contemporary setting. In the end, we found that we disagree over considerably more than we thought we did. Ah well, now that debate has ceased, we should all have a drink. Together at the pub that is, not together at the altar.
posted by The Ochlophobist at 4:31 PM
135 Comments:
I think one of the factors that popped into my mind was Mr. Kimel (I think that is who it is) is about to get ordained to something apparently. In the Roman Catholic clerical mindset, many times clergy should not have blogs because that causes controversy, and religious superiors do not like controversy. (True, many priests have blogs, but I have first hand experiences of superiors not wanting you to post on the Internet.)
Oddly enough, I had a run-in with Mr. Kimel at the All Too Common Anglican Blog and took him to school in terms of Church history (I am not proud of it, but he dismissed my arguments as "irrelevant", which I thought was a cop-out).
In any event, Roman Catholic converts often have to shut off opposing voices because they are not as sure as they think they are about their Latin convictions. They should accept, however, that conversion does not dispel all the difficult clouds of doubt. Faith is truly a journey that often leads us to more questions than answers. The Truth, who is Christ, is always there in this process.
I once saw an old ROCOR abbot (deceased now, vichnaya pamyat!) warn new Orthodox converts about not having a prideful attitude toward the non-Orthodox.
It's not the institution, in the end, that is the most important thing. In Roman Catholicism, however, the Institution looks so grandiose that sometimes it can appear divine. It is not. Although we in smaller Christian groups may have many temptations (sectarianism being the most dangerous), mistaking Power for the Church is not one of them.
Doc Och,
Would you define "ultramontanism?"
Jason Kranzusch
Och -- Behr I know. Who's Bradshaw?
I think we, as Orthodox, need to step back for a moment and witness how Steven Todd Kaster was treated on that blog a few days: a dishonest heretic for being Orthodox in faith. When pressed, this is how I have thought they really think of us. Perry and I have been open and up front about the way we view Rome. I don't believe they will and can because of Rome's overtures and ecumenical jestures. Question: Now, given the way Todd was treated, is that disingenuous? Something for every Orthodox to ponder.
Photios Jones
http://www.energeticprocession.com
Boy, you folks really know how to read between the lines. The self-congratulating, condescending, Orthodox geniuses have scared the Pontificator off of the web. You showed him! And whom are you folks accusing of triumphalism?
Boethius
Pontifications was trying to be three blogs at once: a blog for anglo-catholics thinking about swimming somewhere else; an ecumenical Catholic-Orthodox theological forum (sort of Touchstone minus the protestants); and a Catholic apologetics blog. It could not continue to be all three.
The first mission had pretty much withered - Mr. Kimel didn't much energy into that side of the blog and few Anglicans were showing up any more. It was the last two that created an unbearbale tension. On the one hand we were led to believe that the Orthodox were fully welcome, especially with Fr. Stephen Freeman among the principals. And yet, every third day the main post would be an aggressive polemical article about the absolute necessity and unspeakable glory of the post-VatI papacy.
This couldn't continue and Kimel was right to recognize the fact. If he's going to have a blog he's got to make up his mind what it's about. And the blog that was appropriate for a disgruntled Episcopal priest will not be appropriate for a newly ordained Catholic priest, which I pray is what he soon will be.
Matthias
Ochlophobist, I have just realized that you are the Owen who has been commenting on my blog. I am deeply offended by this article. It is well that comments are being closed, because you are certainly not welcome to post any more on Pontifications.
Oh Al, geez, lightin' up. Are you going to get offended by every little thing someone says? I know, if i did, I would be a walking time-bomb by now. I can't see why you would be "deeply" offended by this article. If someone cussed my mom or sister out out, perhaps then, I would be "deeply" offended.
Glad to see you finally got Bishop Farrell's dissertation he did under Kallistos Ware. I know Farrell personally. He is/was a big fan of Barth. Have fun with that one.
Dear Ochlophobist,
First of all, I owe you an apology for some remarks I made in the comments of a post on the Sarabite blog a few weeks ago that seemed to single you out.
Apologies aside, I do find it a bit humourous that you refer to Pontifications as Triumphications, since Triumphalism is the one word that I would chose to describe a lot of the Orthodox Polemic that I see on the internet. I look at your blog as an exception, since you have taken a good hard look at Orthodoxy in your uberfromm series.
That isn't to say that you are wrong about the tone of the Catholic polemic on the internet today, however. It sounds increasingly shrill and almost farsical. I recall a conversation once with Pseudo-Iamblichus about Evelyn Waugh. P.I. pointed out that Waugh spent his post conversion literary career extolling the triumph of Catholicism, until the Church said "Just Kidding!" at Vatican II.
I guess I'm just tired of trying to figure out if I've found the "True Church" (Patent Pending). I'm not quite the fearless ecclesial explorer that Pseudo-Iamblichus is. I'm an Eastern Catholic and yes, it is incredibly depressing. But what would it profit me to move? I won't lie... Orthodoxy is tempting. But I can't help feeling that for me, it would be something of a cop-out.
Pontificator said...
Ochlophobist, I have just realized that you are the Owen who has been commenting on my blog. I am deeply offended by this article. It is well that comments are being closed, because you are certainly not welcome to post any more on Pontifications.
You just now realized it?
Well, don't be offended. If you really are going to be a priest, you can't let such things offend you. And rather than ban people like owen from posting at Pontifications, a better approach would be to actually be able to rebut his arguments. Until you can do that, it sounds like you're saying, "It's my ball and I'm taking it and going home!" (sulk, sulk, pout, pout)
Maybe the Orthodox arguments were a bit too close for comfort?
Goodness, Mr. Kimel. You would ban owen, who consistently made thoughtful well researched and charitable comments on your blog. But you tolerated the ceaseless drivel of Miss :-) SmileyFace :-) Cheerleader :-) :-) :-) who baited the Orthodox with insults twelve times a day?
You are doing the right thing by closing comments.
I wish people would diss my blog more often. It makes me feel important when people deliver low blows, ad hominem attacks, and the proverbial beating of the dead horse. Though I too get very offended, I tend to ask myself:
"Hold on, Arturo, why is this person saying this? Are you sure you are in the right on this one? Are you about to say something you are going to have to apologize for later."
I have said on my humble blog that I am not the owner of the truth, nor am I even the owner of my own reputation. If people want to "hate on my mad blogging game", that is their perogative, and I do not moderate comments nor do I ban people from my blog. (Although I have been tempted to; it seems that a traditional Catholic woman named Penny is obsessed with me.)
I would hope that Mr. Kimel realizes before ordination that a teaspoon of sugar makes the ultramontanist medicine go down, and that if people don't want to swallow it, he should not try to shove it down their throat.
I have several comments. In the first place I am amazed at the lack of any realization that Mr. Kaster was not being attacked for his "Orthodox opinions" but for his heretical departure from the defined doctrines of the Catholic Church, doctrines (i.e., those defined at Vatican I) which are binding on all churches in communion with the See of Rome, including those of the Byzantine tradition. If he were a member of the GOARCH or the OCA or ROCOR or any canonical or non-canonical Orthodox jurisdiction his views would be received with the same courtesy with which (at least on the part of Al, Mike and myself) have always (with whatever failures on my part) displayed towards views with which we have disagreed. Look at it this way: if Mr. Kaster were a budding "Western Rite" Orthodox theologian and, speaking as such, began per impossibile to assert the ecumenicity of the Council of Florence or of Vatican I, would not his views meet with a (perhaps sharp) corrective, especially if he persisted in them, and alleged hierarchical support for them, and yet without being able (or willing ) to name any such hiereach, instead citing a speech by the Melkite Patriarch of Antioch -- a speech which, in its diplomatic vagueness, might lend support to his views, or might not.
Secondly, I resent and repudiate your baseless imputation to me (and your own lack of courtesy in not naming me) of the view that Mr. Kaster is "a dishonest heretic who is in league with Catholic progressives." If you will reread my comments on that thread, I clearly stated (1) that in his repudiation as a Catholic of defined doctrines of the Catholic Church he is a heretic -- and I stand by that; (2) that in his seeming assumption that as a Catholic he can reject authoritative and/or defined teachings of the Catholic Church, while yet remaining in the communion of that church on his own terms he is doing exactly what the liberal/modernist Catholic proponents of priestesses or of sanctified sodomy are doing -- I did not state that the substance of his dissent had any similarities with theirs, not did I claim that he was "in league" with them; my contention was (and is) that his rationale for being Catholic "on my own terms" is little different than theirs; and (3) as far as "dishonesty" is concerned, well, it does not seem honest to remain in the communion of a church with whose defined doctrines one disagrees, nor does it seem honest to allege support for one's views from one's bishops when unable or unwilling to name them; and to ignore the fact that almost all of those Eastern Catholic bishops present at Vatican I were strong supporters of its definitions.
And two more, if I may.
First, Photios Jones, in his first posting on this thread, seems to fall, with his characteristic recklessness and discourtesy, into the notion which I have just impuigned in my previous posting, that the cause of Mr. Kaster's lambasting was "for being Orthodox in faith." No, it was for thinking, as a Catholic, that he could reject Catholic doctrine and be Catholic on his own terms. Nor does this at all entail the paranoid-seeming conclusion that he goes on to draw from it, that "this is how ... they really think of us." What is the basis for this? None that I can see.
Secondly, and in regard to the posting by the third "anonymous" a slight amount reflection before posting should enable you to draw the conclusion that the reason why Owen was banned at Pontifications was not for any of the comments that he has made there -- comments which I have always found wholly courteous and thoughtful, even when disagreeing with other commenters in the most emphatic way -- but for the astonishingly rude, discourteous and even mocking tone of this present posting of his. His banning was, in a way, my fault, for when Al sent me a link to this post this morning, and I replied by expressing astonishment at the contrast between the manner of Owen's postings at Pontifications (instancing specifically #167 on that thread) and this entry on the Ochlophobist blog, his reply was that he had no idea that Owen was the Ochlophobist; and hinc illae lachrymae. Whatever opinion you entertain of Mrs. Kamer, I doubt that she would diss Al "behind his back" as has happened here. And, in any case, her "baiting" (if you wish to call it that) and Daniel/Photios's consistent surliness, incivility and paranoid tendencies seem well-matched to one another.
You also seem to have forgotten that more than once Al has stated that one of the principal goals of his blog was to encourage disaffected Episcopalians, and Protestants and Anglicans generally, to consider converting to Rome OR TO ORTHODOXY. Unless you doubt his truthfulness in making that claim, you ought to be a wee bit more careful in impuigning the blog and its proprietor.
To Photius, Anonymous, Arturo, and all:
You misunderstand. I am not offended because Owen has insulted me. I am offended because he has violated the hospitality of Pontifications. For over a year he has been a guest of Pontifications. His comments have always been respectful and civil, yet now he publicly tells us what he really thinks about me and my readers. I'm sorry, but this is duplicitous and I am offended.
Hey Bill, no one just up and leaves their communion bud. Why not cut the guy some slack? Anyone and everyone that goes through a transition period, needs to exercise some prudence before leaving. Perhaps it's not best for Mr. Kaster to voice his dissent publically until the proper time that he makes the switch, but what better time to take one's new views out for a test drive too. In that case, I don't blame him either, everyone wants to see if there is ENOUGH wiggle room left in the system before switching. I see it all as part of the psychological basis for moving, so my experience went (as did several others). I know I did. Anyways, it sounds like you just need to relax and get out more. Why don't you try dialoguing with him instead of calling him a heretic and dishonest? I mean if you have anything worth while for him to really stay on your side of the fence, maybe he'll hear ya out.
Photios
Pontificator,
I assumed that Roman Catholics would strongly disagree with certain phrases in this post. I can understand why a Roman would find it irritating. Strong disagreements and irritations are par for the course. I am troubled that I have caused you deep offense. I assume that most readers of your blog would not disagree with my having called the tone there triumphalistic. Some months ago several of your regular RC comboxers defended Crocker's work titled, Triumph: The Power and the Glory of the Catholic Church. Your own treatment of STK would, I think, be considered triumphalistic by many intelligent RCs who consider themselves faithful to the Roman magisterium. But that said, Orthodox have been triumphalistic on your blog as well, at times. I am quite certain that I have written things which could rightly be called triumphalistic. I do not take offense when someone points out that this is so, even when I disagree. I have on your blog and in email admitted at times that I have not been irenic. But I do have an opinion regarding the course of the long debate on your blog, and I mean no offense by it. It is what it is. I have never said anything on your blog that is contrary to what I have said here. Thus, I think that I have not been at all duplicitous. I certainly did not intend to be.
God bless you in your future endeavors. You are welcome to comment here anytime you so please.
O,
You're doing a great job with wit and preceptiveness. Ecracez l'infame!
K
O,
Owing to my being a new fan of your blog, I went over to the subject blog and read Mr. Kaster's posts. I was favorably impressed by the independence of his inquiry. The only ECs with whom I have been familiar have acted more like Latins. I hope to see more of his postings.
Saint Peter the Aleut, save us!
K
axegrinder,
"Ultramontanism is a strong emphasis on the prerogatives and powers of the pope..." the rest is found at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultramontanism
the article is as good as any on the subject.
Somtime before, during, and after VatI ultramontanism becomes the spiritual ethos of conservative Roman Catholicism.
Mr. Grano,
Please check out:
http://www.amazon.com/Aristotle-East-West-Metaphysics-Christendom/dp/0521828651/sr=8-1/qid=1159568139/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-3004737-4049603?ie=UTF8&s=books
Bradshaw is required reading for someone of your intellect and interests. Unfortunately the book is quite expensive. Hopefully a library near you has a copy.
Photius,
Thank you for your comments here. I have felt for some time that you have been given the shaft on the blog in question by many of the persons in question. They are offended by you, but apparently not by the likes of Diane. I have never found anything either of you wrote offensive, perhaps I have thick skin. As I have expressed to you before, but will here again do publicly, I am forever indebted to you for helping me get past my uninformed reservations with Palamas. I consider you to be a thoughtful and well informed young Orthodox intellectual who has been dismissed on a certain forum simply for expressing your convictions in a manner that is more informed, and in certainly no less polemic a fashion than many of your RC counterparts. I for one am glad that we share communion, and I tire of the whining of your detractors.
Your use of the word disingenuous is exactly right, and I will touch on that in a later comment.
sean,
Your words on Sarabite did not offend, have no worries there.
Orthodox do not lack in triumphalism, you are quite correct. But there is a difference beyond that of rhetorical tone. Within the context of this discussion, we see this on two levels, macro and micro. On the macro level it is important to remember that in Orthodox ecclesiology no one Church or See literally triumphs over the others in terms of the authority granted to it. Orthodoxy is not a Church that then seeks to further particular ecclesial triumph through subtle or overt means. Our respective ecclesiologies are such that Orthodoxy is always going to be the underdog when viewed in terms of raw or formal ecclesial power. But many of us Orthodox view this as a good thing. The second consideration is that the blog Pontifications had a reputation for being intellectual and credible, which, of course, it was much more than other blogs (most blogs that deal with Orthodox-Catholic debate are nothing but trite cheap polemics. But it was also a hotbed for triumphalism both overt and subtle, and I don't mean to deny or defend Orthodox triumphalism by saying so.
Boethius,
Thanks for the insight. Your namesake had a bit more charm.
Owen,
In your post number 167 at Pontifications you said that, "I have stated on several recent threads here that you Catholics cannot reject the full weight of Vatican I and remain Roman Catholic. Likewise, we Orthodox cannot accept the petrine office as Vatican I states it and remain Orthodox. We offer two radically different ecclesial Traditions. One of them truly is apostolic and holy. One of them is not. The two paths are not two different expressions of one holy tradition." Now, I must say, speaking as an Eastern Catholic, that I agree with the main thrust of your post, at least as far as Roman Rite Catholics (and Latinized Eastern Catholics) are concerned, but those Eastern Catholics who have embraced the fullness of the Eastern Tradition hold a position on the primacy closer to that of the Eastern Orthodox. In my own experience I can say that none of my Eastern Catholic friends reject the primacy of the Pope within the Church, but then I believe that both Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox accept the ancient doctrine of primacy within synodality, while both simultaneously reject the overly juridical foundations of the 19th century Roman doctrine of papal supremacy.
An example of this divergence of views can be seen by comparing the CDF note on the term "Sister Churches," with the comments of the Melkite Patriarch at the 2001 Synod of Bishops in Rome. Here is what the CDF note said:
"In Christian literature, the expression [i.e., sister Churches] begins to be used in the East when, from the fifth century, the idea of the Pentarchy gained ground, according to which there are five Patriarchs at the head of the Church, with the Church of Rome having the first place among these patriarchal sister Churches. In this connection, however, it needs to be noted that no Roman Pontiff ever recognized this equalization of the sees or accepted that only a primacy of honour be accorded to the See of Rome." [Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "Note on the Expression Sister Churches," no. 3]
Now, here is what the Melkite Catholic Patriarch said about the relationship between the ministry of the Pope and that of the Eastern Patriarchs:
"With all respect due to the Petrine ministry, the Patriarchal ministry is equal to it, ’servatis servandis’, in Eastern ecclesiology. [And] until this is taken into consideration by the Roman ecclesiology, no progress will be made in ecumenical dialogue." [Taken from the statement made by the Melkite Patriarch at the 2001 Synod of Bishops in Rome]
In my opinion, the Melkite Patriarch is correct, because as long as Rome insists on a primacy of power and jurisdiction over the Church and the bishops, instead of a primacy of honor and love in service to ecclesial communion, the restoration of communion between the Roman Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches will be impossible. A Patristic ecclesiology of communion, which sees each local Church as the full realization of the universal Church through the celebration of the liturgy, is incompatible with the Roman universalist ecclesiology, which divides the Church into pieces that are only later juridically united through a concept of hierarchical communion with the bishop of Rome. That being said, it is my hope that the recent discussions in Belgrade will help in the process of restoring a Patristic ecclesiology within the Roman Church.
God bless,
Todd
Owen,
If I helped you understand Palamism, I am much obliged and I recommend you look at my blog for my paper on Gregory of Nyssa, in which I use a commentary on an Orthodox and accepted heretic to spring-board a discussion on what the real issue is between Romanism and Orthodoxy. Though the work and research is uniquely my own, I am indebted to Bishop +Photios Farrell for his instruction and spiritual direction for teaching me how to read ancient patristic texts. I look forward to reading more of your blog in the future.
Daniel Photios Jones
"A Patristic ecclesiology of communion, which sees each local Church as the full realization of the universal Church through the celebration of the liturgy, is incompatible with the Roman universalist ecclesiology, which divides the Church into pieces that are only later juridically united through a concept of hierarchical communion with the bishop of Rome."
Bravo Todd. Nothing is more true or succinctly stated.
Dr. Tighe,
I will offer several points.
1.You were not alone in calling STK "dishonest," "heretic," "liar,"etc. I was not thinking of your comments alone, though I was certainly not impressed by them.
2.The issue of STK. I do not think that STK, the Melkite Church, and other Eastern Catholics who have publicly stated the positions they have are dishonest. I believe that it is Rome which is dishonest. Rome knows good and well the very public position of 24 of the 26 Melkite bishops. It knows full well the public positions of other Eastern Catholics who share the same view of communion with Rome. Now, I can believe one of three things. First, it could be that the Melkite bishops really do believe in VatI, and wrongly believe that it is consistent with Orthodox belief. In that case, the Melkites, probably with Rome's full knowledge, are purposefully downplaying that belief, even hiding it, in order to make ecumenical inroads with Orthodox Antioch. If such is the case, this is truly deceptive, and the culpability lies with both the Melkites and Rome. Second, it could be that the Melkites do not believe in VatI, which their statements certainly seem to indicate, and it could be that Rome purposefully overlooks this because it would be incredibly beneficial for Rome if one of its Eastern Churches were to enter into full communion with a particular Orthodox Church. This would cause a rift in the Orthodox world which would amount to another feather in Rome's ultramontane cap. This is also dubious because it would mean that Rome is overlooking what it considers to be heresy in order to achieve an ecclesio-political end. In this case, most of the culpability lies with Rome. Some might say to this that it could be that Rome is simply slow in responding to this, as Rome is slow in many things. Hogwash. There have been enough years for Rome to have asked for clarification privately and to have inquired into the beliefs of the Melkite bishops. I am confident that Rome either knows what they believe or intentionally does not want to know. We are not talking about a renegade priest or theologian here, which may be overlooked. We are talking about a renegade Church. STK is a very intelligent, informed, inquisitive, and faithful Eastern Catholic, I first became an acquaintance of his some 7 or 8 years ago. I seriously doubt that he is wrong about the beliefs of the Melkite bishops. There is a third option, and that is that Rome believes that the universal jurisdiction language of VatI is in the process of developing, and that it will refrain from asking for clarification from the Melkites or pressuring them until the matter of that development is more or less resolved. The VatI statements on papal primacy are as clear as previous conciliar statements on "no salvation outside of the Church," and the same sorts of arguments which mitigate that former belief could be used to mitigate the universal jurisdiction statements in VatI. In this last case, STK is only a heretic technically, and only for the time being. In this option Rome is culpable for having a dogma that morphs as needed, and is dishonest with regard to its understanding of the relationship between truth and dogma.
I personally think that the second option is the most likely.
3.I do not think that the Pontificator was dishonest when he stated that he desires to help Episcopalians and Protestants enter into communion with either Rome or Orthodoxy. But as I suggest in the post, there seems to be that air of "Orthodoxy is for aesthetes, and Rome is for intellectuals" among many of the RC regulars in the Pontifications comboxes. And lets face it, Fr. Freeman never went to anywhere near the lengths to explain his decision against Rome that Pontificator went to explain his decision against Orthodoxy. Some might view Fr. Freeman's presence on Pontifications of that of the token Orthodox. Sometimes Fr. Freeman expressed his concerns about Rome, yes, but he was usually quite tame. I think that it surprised many, perhaps even the Pontificator himself, that so many Orthodox intellectuals showed up, and that Orthodox-Catholic debate became such a prominent feature on the blog. That debate is not conducive to getting converts to Catholicism. This seems obvious to me, and the truth of the matter does not in turn mean that Pontificator was disingenuous about his desire to help Prots join the Orthodox Church. I am sure that he considers that a great option for someone who will not become Catholic. But that does not mean that his concern is not first and foremost to convert people to Rome. Of course it is, and it should be considering that he is a faithful Catholic. If someone was completely uninterested in witnessing to the truth of one the two communions over the other, then that person would not be either an informed faithful Catholic or an informed faithful Orthodox. I don't think anyone expected the Orthodox presence on a forum like that of Pontifications to be what it was. Orthodox were shown to be able to hold their own on intellectual matters, and not only as the oddball aesthetes. Pontificator did Orthodoxy in America a favor by allowing this to happen. I do not believe that he closed comments because Orthodox made a good show; as I said, the real debates were more or less over, and there was only repetition. I do think that a continued Orthodox-Catholic debate which will only become more and more tired is not conducive on a website of a Catholic priest whose blog deals mostly with matters of Catholic evangelism. And, for reasons I mention above, I think that the STK affair was a fitting end to it all, because it shows the true colors of ultramontanism. Bravo. Hopefully not only Orthodox caught what was going on, but would-be converts to either communion did as well.
Owen:
While some of what you say is true, I feel obliged to do two things here.
First, I take it that I am one of those "Catholic minds" to whom you refer as having had their asses handed to them by Perry Robinson. If so, you're being triumphalistic. Most of my interactions with Perry in the year-and-a-half I've been dealing with him have consisted in my attempts to show one of two things: what he rejects as internally inconsistent in Catholic doctrine is not Catholic doctrine, and in fact I agree with him a good deal of the time. He seems determined to disagree with me anyhow, which is his prerogative but which I don't have the time or inclination to wrestle over. My main disagreements with Perry are few and philosophical.
My own interactions with Perry are indeed symptomatic of much Catholic-Orthodox dialogue: Catholics tend to downplay the differences and Orthodox tend to play them up. Hence, the core disagreement is about the very nature of the disagreement itself. What that tells me, as a philosopher by training, is that people are largely talking past either other. And it is that difficulty that my contributions to Catholic-Orthodox debate at Pontifications are largely meant to address.
Second, I feel obliged rebut what you say about the STK affair at Pontifications and "ultramontanism"—if only for Al's sake and that of some other RCs who have been active on his blog.
As to the more general issue of ultramontanism, you might not be aware that Pastor Aeternus was actually more moderate than what the real ultramontanist party in the Catholic Church wanted, and was meant to be balanced by a constitution about the authority of the bishops that never got promulgated because Vatican I broke up when Italian troops involved in the Franco-Prussian war entered Rome. For a better picture of Catholic ecclesiology, you need to study Lumen Gentium, which is far more explicit about the role of bishops and the faithful generally in the relevant areas, while reaffirming Vatican I. Doing so will show you that my correction of your account over at Pontifications is not just my own opinion. Your account of Catholic ecclesiology is simply distorted. I am not offended by that, for such a distortion is common among non-Catholics and is shared by not a few Catholic trads—the latter being today's real "ultramontanists" who reject the ecumenism of Vatican II and the popes since. But ultramontanism is not the teaching of the Church.
While your speculations about Rome's treatment of the Melkites are interesting, they are ultimately beside the point. I personally know several Eastern-Catholic intellectuals, such as William Tighe (Ukranian; historian at Muhlenberg College) and William Marshner (Melkite; theologian at Christendom College), whose historical and theological knowledge of Eastern Christianity is at least as great as STK's but who simply disagree with him about the point at issue. Thus if what I call 'the Ratzinger position' is indeed the Pope's position, then what needs to be debated is his actual case for affirming the compatibility of Catholic ecclesiological doctrine with what was held in common in the first millennium regarding the primacy. STK does not engage that case; he is content instead with restating the conclusions of Orthodox authors which are indeed incompatible with RP. But with the exception of Zizioulas and Hart, for both of whom I have great respect, I have never seen an Orthodox writer engage Ratzinger's real position seriously. Orthodox controversialists on the Internet in particular seem, rather, to content themselves with repeating old caricatures of Catholicism along with reiterations of Orthodox positions that do not really engage what either Vatican II or the Catholic communio ecclesiologists, such as Ratzinger, have been saying. That, I believe, is what STK and you have been doing.
Best,
Mike
Well on a certain level it’s almost refreshing to find a dissenting voice to the love fest going on over Al’s decision to drop the comments on his blog. That said I find that “triumphalism” (backhanded bragging might a better term) is not something that either communion has a monopoly on. And I detected more than a note of it in Owen’s obituary for Al’s blog. Since stumbling onto this blog (via one of Owen’s comments over at Pontifications ironically) I have read it regularly and with great interest. I agree with most of what’s written here, and have enjoyed Owen’s comments over at Pontifications as well.
Yes, without a doubt the Orthodox acquitted themselves well in the various debates over there. And yes some of the various RC interlocutors sometimes got a bit snarky in their posts. But overall I can not agree with the thrust of this essay. I think the record of Pontifications is overwhelmingly positive. It allowed for spirited and very deep debate (I am a theological novice compared to Owen or Daniel or Mike L.) while for the most part keeping a level of civility that is rare in these kinds of discussions on other web sites. Indeed these kinds of debates are quite rarely found at all (at least on the web) in my experience. While I disagree with Al’s decision to close down the comments and said as much and my reasons for that disagreement, it is certainly his decision to make. And I must very humbly question the propriety of impugning someone’s motives without some sort of compelling evidence.
However, that aside, there is a tone to this article that does not sit well with me. I hope that I will not cause offense in this. But after trying to put my finger on my real complaint here… It has an edge to it that seems not only triumphalist but frankly quite pleased at the end of the commentary at Pontifications. In short I believe this article is a bit lacking in charity.
I don't care who you are, STK is just good people.
Photios
Mike,
As we continually come back to, in your "correction" of my view of Catholic ecclesiology over at Pontifications you look for "a reasonable way of seeing the common data" and have ackowledged there and elsewhere that the question of whose accont of Tradition is to be considered normative is a matter of faith. Which takes me back to what I wrote in #167 on that thread. We have two faiths, for "re-union" to occur one faith would have to be dropped for the other to be embraced. I know that on this we disagree. I have other thoughts on your well written response #181, but I have been banned from Pontifications and there is little time before that thread ends anyway. It is enough that your response bypasses the simple facts that I point out: that the Pope of Rome currently has the authority to appoint and depose bishops, to establish and change canons, and to reorganize synods even if he does not do these things (though Popes since VatII have done these things in Eastern Churches). Neo-Caths want to convince us that things are not really what they appear to be -- but on these issues, they simply are. Any canon to the contrary can be changed by the Vatican at will. To be in league with Rome is to submit to an immediate administrative and jurisdictional authority, no matter how subtle and soft that authority has been of late.
I am aware of the history behind PA and I have read LG more than one time. What the STK affair has shown is that however rhetorically and functionally mitigating LG may be, all Catholics must accept the statements in VatI which I have now quoted several times. These statements are clear, and their intent was clear. The fact that even more radical ultramontanism was restrained (I am aware of that history) does not mean that one finds restraint in these texts. But, from a conservative Catholic perspective, I cannot interpret these texts correctly because I do not have a Catholic faith (or I don't happen to agree with conservative Catholic interpretation). As for my use of "ultramontanist" to describe STK's antagonists, I find it fitting since those who called STK those words are calling him things that Rome, for whatever reason (see above theories) is not willing to call his Melkite Bishops. As for Ratzinger, his terms are a rhetorical game, the most subtle of ultramontanisms. He is brilliant, that there is no doubt. In the end, as your coreligionists have made clear, one must accept VatI as a matter of faith. Ratzinger has suggested on several matters ways in which certain Orthodox canonical forms can be made compatible with Rome -- but we know full well that some form of the current Eastern code will apply to any Church which joins the Unia. To hold such is not paranoia. It is common sense. Orthodox will never do that. Zizioulas and Hart know this, and they have their own agendas when they engage in dialogue (official or not) with Rome. Anyone who thinks that Ratzinger and Zizioulas can somehow work out an ecclesiological comprimise that works for both sides is living in la-la land.
Warmest regards,
Owen
orientem,
I concede your point. My only defense is that when responding to a post signed, "Pontificator Maximus" I believe that a certain amount of facetious triumphalism is appropriate. Thus perhaps my triumphalist commentary on the close of a triumphalist blog era is not too terribly lacking in charity.
No offense taken. Thanks for the comment.
Owen,
Would you be willing to develop a bit what you think "the agenda of Zizioulas and Hart" and of Orthodox ecumenical conversations and activities generally, in regard to Rome?
Also, and as an afterthought to the exchanges over STK's views, I wonder if he (and those who think like him) who happen to find themselves in, or joining, a non-Byzantine Eastern Catholic Church (such as the Copts or the Armenians) would be equally entitled to follow, or recover their tradition, by rejecting the dogmatic decrees of the fopurth, fifth, sixth, etc., councils? What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and if Byzantine Catholics can assert that their particular traditions entitle them to reject dogmatic Roman teaching, I see no reason why these others could not do precisely the same thing.
Owen,
I must say that I am suprised by your post. I certainly won't turn down the intellectual commpliments that you threw my way.
I don't think that Al closed down the combox because of that debate. I think that his use of Maximus is due to his finally getting a hold of some of the works I have recommended on Maximus a few years back.
In any case, I think that your diagnosis on the whole is correct. Catholics tend to have this mentality of thinking of themselves as the ancient church. Orthodox upset that applecart which is why Catholics often play down the differences, if they even grasp them.
As for STK, perhaps he is out of line on paper, but canons often fallen into desuetude. Certainly, STK has more experience and firsthand knowledge of EC's than other commentators and I think it reasonable to cut him some slack.
In terms of strategy, this was the same kind of reception that Daniel received and I don't think it helpd keep him Catholic. If they were smart, they'd express concern and let it go. I don't think they really want STK as an Orthodox convert in the blogsphere. In any case, some time ago the Pope, prior to being Pope, floated the idea that all that was required for the Easterns was to adhere to primacy as it existed in the first 1,000 years. Well, it seems that that is what STK had done. I find it interesting that he gets glossed as a heretic and other nasty things for doing what the Pope suggested.
As for Michael, well, I keep being told that I misunderstand Catholic teaching. Perhaps. I was told that before by him and others, only for them latter to concede that I wasn't mistaken. I have tutors of my own and at my Catholic University with my conservative Catholic professors, they all seem to think that I am getting it right. It would certainly be easier to get it down if it would stop developing. After a while, the "developing" line gets to seem rather ad hoc. If anything though, I think Michael has actually moved closer to my view over the time that we have been discussing matters on Pontifications. His reference to Hart and Zizi had to make me laugh. Not too long ago I was honored to sit among many proto-presbyters of my church. (They are the highest a married priest can go.) When I mentioned that Hart rejected Palamism, they all flat out told me that he couldn't be Orthodox, no matter how smart he was. As for Zizi, I can't see much of anything there that is supposedly in line with Roman teaching about the primacy. Not too long ago, Roman readers on Ponti put up the link to an interview with him showing how "close" he was to being Roman. I suppose they read it thru the eyes of Roman faith since I couldn't see anything there that I didn't already believe and neither I nor anyone else who reads my comments thinks that I am "close."
As for insults, I think there have been plenty to go around. I think saying one thing on someone elses blog and being more open with your own audience is fine. I have done it on Al's blog and my own and I made no secret of it. Of course, there is one difference. I made myself indespensible in taking on Protestants on Pontifictions. :)
Anyhow, Owen, email me-we should have a phone chat if you're up for it.
Perry Robinson
Owen,
Spot on, mate. When Al started the Blog, he seemed very open minded as did most of the posters.
Then, the trimumphifactions transition occurred. Thus, when Perry or anyone else was crusching the RC position on the merits, the Trimuphs resorted to patronizing ad hominens, (usually false) claims of unfair debate, or very hypocritical allegations of rudeness. Though cast in language of taking the high moral ground, I felt the hate, and haughtiness of the Triumphs a time or two. And I have notice that this same little cabal of folks (many clergy!) use the same tactics all over cyberspace, including my website.
Presently, Al is employing the high-handed, "I'm offended," patronizing technique on you now. Don't fall for it. Just agree to disagree, and if he's not man enough to live with that . . . .
P.S.,
I like the way you handled W.T.'s post. Spot on again.
BTW, W.T.'s last post doesn't even deserve response -- you already answered the question posed thoroughly. (Another Triumph-crowd trick is to recast a question already definitively answered against them, so as to pretend you really haven't adequately answered it yet. I suggest that you not take the bait -- just let him imagine he that he posed the last "unanswerable question.")
Owen,
You may delete this comment if you wish, but my last question (in my first paragraph) was an honest one, arising from your earlier comment, and my comment (in my second) seemed a reasonable point to air in the light of the earlier discussion.
I don't know what's biting Mr. Bredon, nor what he thinks he is accomplishing by brandishing his meaningless and empty insults on every opportunity. If one is going to insult and mock, than it a good idea to do it in an intelligible and meaningful manner; otherwise one simply convicts onself of ignorance and absurdity in the same breath.
O,
Whew! As I don my body armor, let me ask two questions.
Regarding doctrinal development, what constitutes the data which forms the implicit basis of a developing dogma? Also. could developing dogma develop into the antithesis of an infallible dogma?
K
Och -- thanks for the tip on Bradshaw. Re: D.B. Hart -- from whence the notion from that he's not a Palamist? I know he's a bit more amenable to Aquinas than many other Orthodox but I haven't run across a rejection of Palamism by him anywhere.
RG
Regarding STK: As I said in an email to the Ochlophobist, it must be remembered, especially by those defending him, that Mr. Kaster was a Latin Rite Catholic for 18 years before switching to an Eastern Rite (see http://catholica.pontifications.net/?p=929#comment-22403). I do not offer an analysis of this choice, but I do think it's significant to this discussion.
18 years a Latin Catholic? Then he has certainly had time to inform himself about these matters.
Perry, you wrote above "some time ago then pope, prior to being pope, floated the idea that all that was required for the Easterns was to adhere to the primacy as it existed in the forst 1,000 years." That's not exact: what he said was that the West could ask of the East no more than that they accept the exercise of the primacy as it was exercised in the first 1,000 years AND that they not reject as illegitimate (or erroneous -- I forget which) the manner in which the West has come to understand the basis of the papal primacy in the second milennium. It seems to me that STK has clearly gone beyond this.
Cardinal Ratzinger said that the East need only accept the primacy as it had "been formulated and was lived in the first millennium." [Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, "Principles of Catholic Theology," page 199] Now clearly, this comment includes more than the mere "exercise" of the primacy, because the quotation explicitly includes the formulation of the doctrine. Moreover, Cardinal Ratzinger specifically referred to a comment made by Patriarch Athenagoras of Constantinople in 1967 during a visit by Pope Paul VI to the Phanar, in which the Patriarch "designated him [i.e., the Pope] as the successor of St. Peter, as the most esteemed among us, [and] as one who presides in charity," and in Ratzinger's opinion, that simple statement made by the Patriarch expressed "the essential content of the doctrine of the primacy as it was known in the first millennium." [Ratzinger, page 199] Finally, I am sure that we can all agree that Joseph Ratzinger is an intelligent and perceptive man, and that he is fully aware of the fact that Patriarch Athenagoras rejected the definition of papal supremacy issued at the First Vatican Council; and yet, he seems unconcerned about this fact, and instead believes that the confession made by the Patriarch was sufficient as far as the doctrine of the primacy is concerned.
God bless,
Todd
STK cleary is informed on these matters.
I am not sure what to make of STK's 18 years as a Latin. I was a Latin, technically, for 4 1/2 years before I became Orthodox, though I only practiced Latinism for less than half of that time. I went to perhaps a dozen or so Eastern Catholic churches after I realized that there was simply no way that I could continue to attend novus ordo Masses, and I don't particularly care for the Tridentine liturgy either. Before, during, and after my affair with Catholicism I attended Orthodox Churches on and off. Orthodoxy has always been my first love. I once attended a Ukrainian Catholic Church in MPLS, MN which had a highly Latinized Divine Liturgy and in which the priest used his homily time lambasting the Pope (this was about 10 years ago now) for various areas in which the Ukrainians were running into problems practicing Eastern Christianity -- among other things, while at that time married men could not be ordained in the Ukrainian Catholic Church in the United States, the UkCC would send married men to Ukraine to get ordained and then bring them home, apparently this started some sort of rift, and Rome did not back up the UkCC the way that this priest desired. He said some very strong things against Pope JPII, in fact the sermon had nothing to do with the gospel reading at all. In all but one of the Eastern Catholic Churches I attended I felt a sense of either near complete Latinization or bitterness with Rome. But my experience is limited to those twelve or so churches I visited, though I visited some of them several times over several years. Thus, in my limited experience I cannot fathom why STK did not just come to the Orthodox Church. But, having spoken with the man about books now and again years ago, and having read a fair amount of his writing on his own website and various blogs, I am convinced that he is a person of integrity, and that whatever reasons he had for becoming Eastern Catholic he sincerely believed that they were just and honest. In the realm of ideas, especially ideas which have to do with faith, we usually do not wake up one day having a different position than the day before. It took me many years to come to Orthodoxy, and I had hang ups on some pretty important issues (Palamas) that were not resolved until the last couple of years. Life and faith are complicated. It seems to me that STK's bishops are perfectly happy with his belief. It seems to me that STK believes as the Melkite bishops believe. It seems to me that the Melkite bishops think that their belief is consistent with what they have always believed. And it seems that this is either OK with Rome, or that Rome is waiting to act, or acting through the means of waiting, for reasons that I have suggested above. STK would seem to be culpable insofar as he had to submit to Roman canons in order to go through the process to become Eastern Catholic. But now considering that he is in an Eastern Catholic Church that thumbs its nose at those canons, I do not think that STK is all that culpable for having rejected the very canons that were used in order for him to make the transition. That would depend on the peculiarities of a process with which I am not very familiar. Anyway, the slight degree to which STK may be culpable is interesting from a canonical point of view (I don't see how it can be much more than slight when his own bishops, as a synod, support him), but it is neither here nor there to those of us who know him. As Photius says, Todd is good people, and his Orthodox friends will defend him to the death even if his Catholic "brethren" use him as their latest whipping boy in the cause for ultramontanist triumph.
Dr. Tighe,
I have never deleted a comment, and I certainly am not going to start now. I assumed your honesty, as I always have, even when I disagree.
I recall you writing recently about your decision to become Eastern Catholic and how it related to the fact that there are three Churches which claim to be the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Thus your question about the goose and the gander is received in the context of thoughts you have provoked in my own mind recently. First I would like to say that I appreciate the goose and gander language because it recognizes the fact that Latins really, deep down, view the Eastern Churches as foul (please, literalists, note the joke there). My short answer is this: If the Byzantine Churches "need only accept the primacy as it had 'been formulated and was lived in the first millennium,'" then I would imagine that it would only be fair that the Oriental Churches East "need only accept the primacy as it had 'been formulated and was lived before'" 451. How that effects the question of whether or not they must accept Chalcedon I have no idea. But this brings me to a more broad point. Some of the comments you make about matters particular vs. matters Catholic assume that the Church Catholic is the Roman Church (and those Churches in communion with it who accept all of its councils and dogmas, etc.). But since as a matter of faith you accept all of the papal claims this is to be expected, of course. But Orthodoxy, as you know, rejects your view of the Church Catholic. We do not believe that we are merely particular Churches which happen to be out of communion with Rome. We believe that our Churches comprise the Church, One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. True Catholicism is found in Eastern Orthodoxy. Mike L. once made an eloquent comment about the scandal of particularity in the belief that one man is given the keys to the kingdom in RC ecclesiology. I responded by saying that with Orthodoxy there is the scandal of the universal. It seems quite odd that the Holy Spirit would reside fully in a Church that has been so abused and nearly squashed on more than one occasion, that was limited for so long to particular geographical areas, has been intellectually backwards in various times and places, has been compromised and corrupted in various times and places, and makes little to no significant impact in "current events." Of course, this scandal of the universal is not a proof that the Eastern Orthodox Church is the Church, if that were the case the Orientals would make the far better case. Orthodoxy is a communion. While many Romans give lip service to this fact it is clear that they do not mean it. Rome views Orthodoxy as a collection of particular churches. The only real communion, from a Roman point of view, is that of being in communion with Rome. Orthodox views of communion are more complex, though less forced, but we also recognize that there is only one authentic Holy and Apostolic communion and we recognize it to be our own. On a recent comment over on the Pontifications thread a Roman expressed that Rome should concentrate on ecumenism with the Orthodox one church at a time. Rome does not need that advice, that commenter's instincts are quite correct and Rome has followed this path for many years. Usually, when Rome gets together with large groups of Orthodox, Rome likes to highlight various canonical and disciplinary differences between various Orthodox Churches in order to mitigate its own canonical and disciplinary differences (some of those differences among Orthodox Churches have to do with slight Latinizations, but most are simply valid, Eastern differences on these matters, Easterners have never been the canonical purists that the Latins have been; the differences between Orthodox Churches on these points do not compare to the general differences between our canons and their application and the official Eastern Canon Code that Rome prescribed to the Eastern Catholic Churches.) Rome's strategy has always been to divide and conquer. It does not really acknowledge that we are even a communion. Likewise, I, as an Orthodox, do not recognize Rome to have an authentic communion. I believe that its ecclesiology is a distortion of the apostolic understanding and life which constitutes the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. The Orientals, on the other hand, so it seems to me, have the proper (or very close to proper) understanding ecclesiologically. This is ironic, to say the least. For both Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, when we ask the question, who is the Church, we do not follow up that question with, who, on earth, has ultimate authority? We instead ask the question, Who is Jesus Christ? Our ecclesiologies are formed and informed by our Christologies. Thus one of the reasons that I am hopeful that the schism which occurred after Chalcedon can be healed is that when I look at Oriental ecclesiology (and its healthy state) I must assume that their rejection of Chalcedon (and the actions of certain Orthodox which encouraged that rejection) are based more on misunderstanding than on actual Christological problems (I certainly hope this is the case). More than one Oriental bishop has said that if one takes into account all of the various complications and problems at Chalcedon, then they can accept what Byzantine Orthodox really meant there. In fact, I have read that there are Oriental bishops who have said that they can accept not only Chalcedon (in the manner above), but also Constantinople 2 and 3, and Nicaea 2. For Orientals to accept these councils would require very little change in canons, discipline, liturgy, or the overall life of their Church. Thus, Oriental and Eastern Orthodox reunion is conceivable. Oriental identity is based on much more than merely rejecting Chalcedon, and the positive theologies and practices of both Churches share much in common. The theologies (particularly ecclesiology, but it only begins there) and practices of Rome and the EOC share very little in common. When I look at the Oriental Churches I see much more evidence of the protection of the Holy Spirit than when I look at Rome. All this is to say that I do not think it possible for an Eastern Catholic Church to believe what it believed during the first 1,000 years of the Church (or the first 451) with regard to the papacy and at the same time be in a real communion with Rome. Either that Eastern Catholic Church will Latinize (first its theology and canons, and then, more often than not, its liturgy, etc.), or the Eastern Catholic Church will simply ignore Rome or overtly disagree with Rome on various matters, as do the Melkites, so long as Rome allows it (which I believe they do for reasons stated above). Thus I am not very hopeful about the future of the Unia.
Orthodoxy is full of problems. I described some of those problems in prior posts here. But Fr. Freeman is correct when he points out that many of Orthodoxy's weaknesses are also its own strengths. We have what appears to be a weak and ineffective ecclesiology. I thank God for it.
In the end, what is good for both goose and gander is to return to themselves by seeking communion with the Orthodox Church. Ultimately what Rome decides to do with its foul Rome will do. I fear for good Christian men like STK.
We've all encountered those who dismiss Orthodoxy because of its seeming chaos and inconvenient lack of a visible unifying personage. After reading comments on this and other blogs, I am still looking for the unity in the Roman church. Mr. Kaster has reliably reported the posted Melkite view, which has been in the public domain for over ten years and which appears to contradict Rome's papal supremacy dogma, yet the Melkite view hasn't been authoritatively denounced. Is Roman unity to be viewed as solely a utilitarian, institutional phenomenon?
I agree with your last post, Mr. O. Having been a Uniate monk, it was always some sort of split-personality theology that I could never quite get over (that is why I am no longer a Uniate). The hegumen of the monastery swings back and forth between being a cheerleader for the Pope Benedict fan club and trying to play the "Orthodox in communion with Rome" card, depending on who is around at the time. Many Eastern Catholics don't think about the issues that you are talking about because they don't think period. Many just want to be left alone with their icons and "devout Mass", just thankful that they don't have to go to the Novus Ordo Mass across the way.
Now, I know people who are sincere in their Eastern Catholicism, but they are the ones who are the least triumphalistic about it. I respect the position because I think that converting to Orthodoxy is to lop off intellectually and spiritually the greater portion of the Christian experience in history. If we Western Christians have been heretical all along, every beautiful thing that I experienced growing up was a lie. I cannot accept that.
For someone then to convert to Eastern Catholicism is a lot like having your cake and eating it too: you adopt the Orthodox way yet you do not reject the West absolutely. That is how I thought as an Eastern Catholic. Besides, a now deceased ROCOR archimandrite, himself a convert and novice on Mount Athos, told me in a conversation before I left for the monastery that I should not let anyone convince me to become Orthodox. For him, I was already in the Church of Christ. I think that this is real Orthodox ecclesiology, but it is an ecclesiology of particular cases, not the ecclesiology of mass ecumenical meetings of "experts".
As it stands now, the body I am in now, the Anglican Province of Christ the King, is almost a branch of Western Orthodoxy. (Very Anglo-Catholic and Philo-Orthodox.) Our archbishop was even good friends with Alexander Schmemann. Maybe I am having my cake and eating it too on this one.
Pseudo-Iamblichus,
If we Western Christians have been heretical all along, every beautiful thing that I experienced growing up was a lie.
The Orthodox Church understands the process of salvation in terms of our recapitulation in Christ. We recapitulate the life of Christ who recapitulated the life of Israel. Truth and beauty cannot exist apart. To the extent that your experiences were truly beautiful they were true. I am sure that you had experiences which have been truly beautiful. The Holy Spirit goes where he wills with regard to the "particular cases" the ROCOR archimandrite refers to. Christ makes a tapestry of the truly beautiful moments in our lives in order to spell out His life onto and within our own. Few Orthodox would deny you your paticular experiences, and no Orthodox I know would deny their place in your own recapitulation of Christ.
The Anglican Province of Christ the King preserves much of what is venerable in the Anglican tradition. Would it not be interesting if, after the long dark night of Anglicanism, they decided to become Western Rite Orthodox? That would make for an interesting and ironic twist in the life of Mr. Arturo Vasquez, my favorite of God's troubadours. Western Rite Orthodoxy tends to have less of the Orthodox triumphalism that we both find distaseful. But wherever you end up, P-I, I have no doubt that you are one of God's particular cases.
O,
Your take on Mr. Kaster's situation strikes me as basically correct. But as you said: "[I]n my limited experience I cannot fathom why STK did not just come to the Orthodox Church."
Indeed, the situation with the Melkite bishops is disturbing to me, as someone who is considering which of these two communions is the fullness of the Gospel. It is not as straightforward as the dissent among the clergy on other matters of faith and morals (as Dr. Tighe would have it), because if (a) the Melkite bishops are now dissenting from teachings many other Catholics take as dogma, but (b) there has been no action, not even in words, taken against them, then it seems reasonable to conclude that there is potentially a real, perhaps intolerable ambiguity in what constitutes dogma in the Catholic Church. This ambiguity may be merely latent now but that doesn't make it any more tolerable.
If Mr. Kaster is wrong about either of these two points, the problem doesn't arise. However, I have yet to see it demonstrated that he is wrong. His fellow Catholics have simply asserted that if (a) is true, then the Melkites are in de facto schism or heresy. But if they are, then why (so it is alleged) no word from the Vatican? This seems a reasonable question to ask. Again I speak not of disciplinary action, but simply some statements to the effect that this dissent is unacceptable, as we frequently see on a wide, wide range of issues.
"After reading comments on this and other blogs, I am still looking for the unity in the Roman church."
I think I know what this "unity" is... submission. "If you are under our pope, we won't bother you- too much." Ask yourself something:
How many men in the Eastern Orthodox communion hold the title of "Patriarch of Antioch"?
One.
How many men in the Roman Catholic communion hold the title of "Patriarch of Antioch"?
Three.
What does that say to you about the importance in the Roman Church of being a "patriarch" of an ancient historical apostolic see other than the see of Rome? Ask yourself honestly. I think this will tell you everything you need to know.
-Julio
Owen,
You may, of course, be right, both about Orthodox/Oriental reunion and about the position of Rome vis-a-vis the Melkites, and vice versa. But I don't think it's obvious.
In the first place, when I spent some days as Holy Resurrection Monastery (a Ruthenian Catholic monastery in the Mojave Desert) some years ago, we visited a Coptic monastery a few miules away for the better part of a day. While there, I had the opportunity to peruse a large series of catachetical lectures that Pope Shenouda of Alexandria had been giving over the immediately preceding years. About Chalcedon, while he did say that he thought Oriental Orthodox, Orthodox and Catholics shared the same Christological faith, he was insistent both that any orthodox reading of Chalcedon went against the natural sense of the Council's definition (and that Leo's Tome was heretical) and that the Coptic church would never accept Chalcedon as an ecumenical council. I recall also that, back around 1991 when iot seemed for a while that the Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch and the Oriental orthodox patriarchs were going to declare their two churches back in communion with each other, a gentle warning that such unions could not be declared ona local basis without the risk of new schisms emanated from the Ecumenical Patriarchate, not at all dissimilar from that which the then Cardinal Ratzinger later put out concerning the Zoghby Initiative.
As to the larger question of the Melkites, and Eastern Catholics generally, and Rome, all that I can say is that I find it very unlikely that any Ruthenian or Ukrainian Cahtolic bishop, at least any one of them here in North America, would agree that STK's stance is compatible with "Catholic communion." In fact, while I have found some regret and even resentment among "native-born" Eastern Catholics about the prohibition (now, as it would appear, falling into desuetude) against ordaining married men, I have never come across people claiming that as Eastern Catholics they were not bound by the dogmatic decrees of any council recognized as ecumenical by Rome; and on those rare occasions that I have encountered such views they have invariably come from Latin Cahtolics who have migrated to one of the Eastern Catholic churches, or from non-Catholics who have entered into Catholic communion through one of these Eastern Catholic churches. So I rather think that such Eastern Catholics who espouse such views are miniscule in numbers. Indeed, given my view of the unclarity, not to say incoherence, of what the two points of the Zoghby Initiative actually mean, let alone what they entail, and the wide divergence of ways in which they might be read, I have no idea whether the 24 (out of 26) Melkite bishops who endorsed it understood it in such a way as to constitute a unilateral "disengagement" from what Vatican I (and II) declared about the papacy -- declarations which, as I keep on repeating, the Eastern Catholic bishops present a tthose councils themselves endorsed. I do not, however, think that converts (or immigrants) to Eastern Catholic churches are in any position to state what they or their churches accept or reject of papal teaching; and in any case (as I have also said), where are those Eastern Catholic bishops that are willing to step up to the plate and to own such views.
One might (as Anthony wrote) wonder why, if the Melkites are in de facto schism or heresy, the Vatican does nothing. (However, let me repeat here that I do not know that about the Melkites, and to date have nothing beyond their patriarch's obscure words to lead me to believe it.) One night more plausibly inquite why, if a number of American Latin Catholic bishops are so clearly advocates of the ordination of women, or of finding some way to bless homosexual unions, the Vatican has not deposed and excommunicated them. I regret this inactivity, but have no explanation for it.
Owen,
I thought that you should know, if you do not already know, that the general docility of Eastern Catholic bishops in the United States is related to the fact that Rome appoints all Eastern Catholic bishops in diaspora communities around the world. This is of course a controversial issue with the Melkite Patriarch and Synod, and I know for a fact that a large portion of Melkite clergy and laity in the United States do not appreciate this Roman Curial intrusion into the governance of their supposedly self-governing Church.
God bless,
Todd
It should be noted that the Melkite Catholic Patriarch and the Holy Synod of that Church have not repudiated the Zoghby Initiative; and not only that, but the Melkite Patriarch, while attending the Synod of Bishops in 2001, asserted that the Patriarchal ministry is equal to that of the Pope (See the first comment that I posted in this thread).
Owen,
I have noted with interest your references--both here and at Pontifications-- to the possibility of restoring communion between the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox. This is a particular area of interest for me and, I think, an excellent topic for a separate thread here.
Dear Owen,
I overreacted to your article and in my written comments on your blog. I should have first written you privately. I apologize, and I withdraw my ban from Pontifications.
But I am still offended by your piece, and I believe you owe the readers and commentators of Pontifications an apology. Your "expose" violated the bonds of community that you had formed with me, as blogmaster, and all with whom you have enjoyed conversation and debate over the past year. Your piece is disrespectful, and all the attempts we have seen in this thread to justify this disrespect are even more more so. Even if you believe all that you have written, even if it is all true, the publication of this piece was wrong. It was, if I may use an old-fashioned word, dishonorable. Better to have remained silent.
The accusation of triumphalism is specious. Only triumphalists enter into internet debate. We all know that. We feel deeply our convictions and we believe these convictions are indubitably true. Catholics believe the Catholic Church is the authentic successor of the Apostles; Orthodox believe the same about the Orthodox Church. Will the non-triumphalist please stand up. Before a person accuses another of triumphalism, he should first remove the log in his own eye.
I wish you the best in your blogging endeavors.
"I do not, however, think that converts (or immigrants) to Eastern Catholic churches are in any position to state what they or their churches accept or reject of papal teaching; and in any case (as I have also said), where are those Eastern Catholic bishops that are willing to step up to the plate and to own such views."
I don't have a dog in this fight since I'm neither RC nor EC (I'm Orthodox) but I have to take issue with this. Thank God for the converts and the 'immigrants' to Eastern Catholic Churches in this country or they would die.
Also given the history of the EC churches in this country it's IMHO absurd to suggest that the bishops know more about Eastern Catholicism than the educated converts. The Eastern Catholics long ago sold out their tradition. We all know about the unfortunate events of the early part of this century when ECs came to this country and were forced to choose between their eastern tradition and a kind of latinized, so as not to offend the Irish, form of their tradition. Those that choose the latter are now less 'eastern' than Rome wants them to be. Thank God half of the Ruthenians left for Orthodoxy or they'd be in the same position as the modern day Ruthenian Church, i.e. no seminarians, dying parishes.
One of the things that really cracks me up is that the Ruthenian bishops are still afraid of ordaining married men when they are so far off the radar screen of most RCs that no one would even care.
I think this discussion illustrates why most people who really want to be eastern end up leaving the EC churches for Orthodoxy. I suppose that's why many on-line RC apologists secretly 'distrust' their EC brothers/sisters.
Dear Owen,
As an outsider scoping things out between Orthodox and Catholic, I wonder, how do you deal with someone like Padre Pio, who was busy bilocating, healing, working miracles, yet very submissive to the Roman pope (and presumably subscribed to the Filioque)?
Or for that matter, a wonder-worker like John Vianney, the Cure of Ars?
It seems the Roman Communion has some powerful saints in its midst, just wonder how you see them.
Dear Pontificator,
I am grieved that I have caused you such offense. As I admitted in a comment in this thread, there is triumphalism in my post. I agree with you that both Catholics and Orthodox act as triumphalists, to varying degree, when engaging in apologetical and polemical debate. I would add that my own casual triumphalism expressed here does not seem to me to be out of line with the rhetorical milieu of Pontification's combox. I disagree with the notion that what is found here is out of character with the comments I made on Pontifications. You have deleted my comments on Pontifications before so I presume that you felt that those comments were out of line in a similar manner to this post. I do not attempt to accuse you or your blog of triumphalism. I state it as a matter of fact. I have not denied that I have myself at times engaged in, as have my Orthodox brethren, instances of triumphalism. The point of this post is simply to state my opinion of how Catholic triumphalism has run into some rhetorical and ideological problems in recent debate on your blog. As an Orthodox, I triumphantly find this amusing. My triumphant amusement with regard to these issues is tame in comparison to the rhetorical triumpantism of Diane and others who regularly made comments directed at Orthodox in general and in particular which were much more disrespectful than the comments I have made towards the Catholic crowd at Pontifications in this post (with regard to respect, I wrongly assumed that a certain amount of rhetorical playfulness was allowed on a blog run by someone who uses the moniker "Pontificator Maximus"). In fact, my rhetorical tone here was meant to mimic, in a teasing and somewhat facetious fashion, the tone regularly employed by Diane & co. on your own blog. As I see that Diane has been publicly thanked by Mike L. on your blog, I am confused with regard to how my own actions have "violated the bonds of community," unless the terms of those bonds are different for Orthodox than they are for Roman Catholics. As I have expressed many a time now, I have never been personally offended by Diane, so I am not here attempting to "get revenge," for certain rhetorical allowances on your blog. I must note that I was wrong to assume that the same boundaries of these bonds of community which applied to her also applied to me. My teasing was meant to be a form of commentary on the current state of things on your blog. Had I known that it would have caused such a degree of offense I would have left that aspect of this post out. But though I can be contrite for having caused offense by using certain words and phrases, I continue to stand by the content of my post. As you are aware, other significant Orthodox commenters on your blog agree, more or less, with the content of this post. I think that the presence of STK, added to the residual presence of Daniel (Photius) after his conversion, on your blog created an awkward rhetorical scenario that diverted the blog from its original intent. I think that the reaction to STK on the part of you and others was highly imprudent with regard to your own cause, and I think that it perfectly highlights substantial disagreements between our camps. It follows, logically, from your recent comment that you do not consider all acts of triumphalism to be a sin. If Catholics and Orthodox engage in triumphalism when they debate online (which you state is a matter of necessity) then if you believed that the triumphalism of debate was a sin you would have stated that you must end the comments because it was wrong to ever have allowed them in the first place. You have not stated this. Thus, I assume that you do not believe that all triumphalism is a sin. Nor do I. I think that much of it, in both Catholic and Orthodox camps, is cheap and distasteful. But I agree with you that there is a necessary element of triumph in stating that ours, and only ours, is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church (if we do not allow for a certain amount of "triumph" of this nature then we must embrace ecclesiological anarchy). But if triumphalism is not always a sin, then I do not see how the "remove the log in his own eye" admonition works. The way I see it is more along these lines: I drink alcohol. Other people drink alcohol. If I point out that another fellow's alcohol consumption caused him problems (say I happen to mention to my employees that so and so did not show up for work today because he got a DUI last night - which I have had to do before), I am not a hypocrite thereby simply because I happen to drink as well. The Stuebenville style overt ultramontanism faces some problems when it encounters the "facts on the ground," as I believe STK put it. I was simply pointing out those problems, and how they relate to Catholic triumphalism in this particular instance. I may very well be wrong in my assessments, but I do not understand the extent to which my opinion has caused such offense.
On this blog I have addressed what I believe are some of the very real problems faced by Orthodox when they triumphalize to excess (if I may continue the drinking analogy), and I have attempted to be fair, over the course of my own online writing which has gone on for some years now, to admit and name triumphalism wherever I see it.
I certainly did not mean to offend as I clearly have. Considering the context, I thought that calling Pontifications Triumphications would not be taken with the solemnness with which it has been received. I apologize for this unintended offense which my words have caused. As I have stated, I am thankful for the years of debate which have occurred on Pontifications, and I wish you well as always.
JGurrea,
Your comment is much appreciated. I cannot count how many times I have heard American Catholics point to North American and European Orthodox jurisdictional problems and say "look what a mess they are and how desperately they need the Pope!"
Right. Take a look at Eastern Catholicism and one sees that all Rome has done is put a canonical band-aid on an even more gaping jurisdictional wound than our own. You are exactly correct. The idea that all the Orthodox Churches joining with Rome would solve our jurisdictional problems is patently absurd.
seraph,
Some of the holiest people I know are very, very low church Protestants. I once met an Evangelical single woman who lived and worked in the huge garbage dump in Guatamala City, wherein tens of thousands of poor and sick people lived and pillaged for bits and scraps. She exhibited many signs of saintliness. The Holy Spirit goes where He wills and can manifest Himself in any soul who humbly calls upon Christ. What the Holy Spirit does outside of the Orthodox Church does not negate those particular things that the Holy Spirit does within the Orthodox Church. Several Orthodox saints have looked at post-schism Western saints and recognized their sanctity. But with regard to reunion my take is this - if I can acknowledge apparent sanctity is this or that Mennonite, with whom no one would regard any chance that his sect will ever unite with the Orthodox Church, then why must my acknowledgement of the apparent sanctity of certain RC saints mean that there is existential grounds for reunion? I agree with the general take of the Orthodox Church on this matter: acknowledge apparent sanctity when one sees it, while at the same time remaining agnostic with regard to what the Holy Spirit is doing outside of Orthodoxy. I think it right to say that Orthodoxy only knows the Holy Spirit through the Holy Spirit's presence in the Orthodox Church.
You have misundrstood me, I think, Jennifer. I, too, am an "immigrant" to an Eastern Catholic church of the Byzantine tradition. But as a layman and as an "immigrant" I hardly think that I would be in a position to pronounce, in contradiction to our bishops, that "my" church rejects, and is entitled to reject, teachings that Rome has defined as part of the Catholic Faith. If I believed, ex hypothesi, that they were erroneous teachings, I would (I presume) become Orthodox. I cannot imagine why I would wish (in those circumstances) to remain an Eastern Catholic, since most of the Eastern Catholic Churches themselves are based on the premise that Rome is (as it were by definition) a "touchstone" of the True Faith. If it is not what it claims to be, nobody in his right mind should wish to be in communion with it, and least of all an Eastern Catholic.
As an Eastern Catholic I am not saying anything all that unusual. In fact, I am merely repeating the words of various Eastern Catholic bishops, men like the present Melkite Catholic Patriarch Gregory III Laham (see my first post in this thread), and Melkite Archbishop Zoghby, who in connection with the First Vatican Council has said that, ". . . valid or not, Vatican I has the same designation as the Council of Lyons, a 'general' synod of the West. With this designation it is neither ecumenical nor infallible and could produce only theological opinions that cannot be imposed on anyone." [Archbishop Zoghby, "Ecumenical Reflections"], and even the 19th century Ruthenian Archbishop Vancsa of Fogaras, who while attending the First Vatican Council said that, "For the sake of reunion, I am compelled to declare solemnly, and with utmost urgency to beg of you, Right Reverend Fathers, that the things contained in this second paragraph be cut out wholly, or at least that another formula be substituted." [Butler, "Vatican Council 1869-1870," 341] Yet sadly, Eastern Catholic voices have been ignored, and continue to be ignored, by the Roman Church. Primacy within the Church must not be confused with supremacy over the Church, and until the West returns to the ancient understanding of primacy within synodality, it is clear that ecumenical dialogue will go nowhere.
God bless,
Todd
[Seraph]"It seems the Roman Communion has some powerful saints in its midst, just wonder how you see them."
Hi Seraph. There are plenty of powerful Orthodox saints. We also have the holy fire.
[Owen]"As I see that Diane has been publicly thanked by Mike L. on your blog, I am confused with regard to how my own actions have "violated the bonds of community," unless the terms of those bonds are different for Orthodox than they are for Roman Catholics."
I'm no fan of Diane. Frankly I thnk her emotional problems are the 'elephant in the room,' so to speak, on all of the places she frequents. I've communicated with a few RCs over her behavior with my theory that they should reign in her in. They don't see her as their problem, which is, IMHO, unfortunate. My theory is that she's their 'shock troops.' They know she'll go charging into every battle and take all of the heat for them. They're not doing her any favors by allowing her to behave like she does.
[William]"I cannot imagine why I would wish (in those circumstances) to remain an Eastern Catholic, since most of the Eastern Catholic Churches themselves are based on the premise that Rome is (as it were by definition) a "touchstone" of the True Faith. If it is not what it claims to be, nobody in his right mind should wish to be in communion with it, and least of all an Eastern Catholic."
The high church Byzantines, as a friend likes to refer to them, stay in communion with Rome because they believe they are testifying to the importance of being in communion with Rome. I became Orthodox so obviously I think they're wrong. But the way I see it is that ECs like Todd are the hope of reunion between the two of us. We're never going to become RCs with a funny liturgy, so to speak. The reason that we don't submit to the pope is not that we've just never read "The Keys to the Kingdom" or some such polemical book.
I think that we should also acknowledge that the submission to Rome is not the "touchstone" with the EC Churches. Those Churches exist for purely political reasons. There was never any theological reason behind the Unia despite how what some epologists like to claim. Some within the EC Churches like Todd are trying to recapture the eastern heritage of these Churches and that has to mean adopting eastern spirtuality/theology. Rome doesn't intend for ECs to be Roman Catholics with a funny liturgy. They're in a catch 22, IMHO, because in doing what Rome wants them to do, recover their eastern traditions, they will end up rejecting RC teachings such as the Immaculate Conception and Papal Supremacy. These are simply not eastern. Western development of doctrine (and I do acknowledge that we have our own less developed idea of the development of doctrine) isn't part of our tradition.
I would also turn around your words and say that I don't understand why someone who accepts Roman Catholic theology is an Eastern Catholic. Why not just be RC? Of course I understand why some ultramontanists attend EC churches. But I don't think they're being true to themselves. They're not worshipping in a manner that is consistent with what they truly believe.
Of course I'm speaking generally here. There are a lot of nuances that I'm overlooking. But I do believe that if the EC churches have any future outside of nationalism (which I think would be a very good thing for the Catholic Church) then people like Todd have to be left in peace. If you drive them out (and I'm sure that he's fairly confident where he is and is not considered to be beyond the pale by his priest) then the American EC Churches will die (at least the Ruthenian Church, which is probably dying anyway). Instead of demanding conformity so that the 'fight' with the Protestants is easier, you should let them be.
Jennifer,
I would also turn around your words and say that I don't understand why someone who accepts Roman Catholic theology is an Eastern Catholic. Why not just be RC? Of course I understand why some ultramontanists attend EC churches. But I don't think they're being true to themselves. They're not worshipping in a manner that is consistent with what they truly believe.
Spot on!
Latinist aesthetes who cannot stomach the novus ordo perhaps? But that begs many questions does it not? Among others -- if Rome is suffering through the novus ordo, and Rome is right, and I am a convert from the West, why not suffer with Rome?
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. But as to suffering with Rome, is Rome Rome? I don't mean the 2nd and 3rd Rome idea in the East. I mean what Fr. LeFebrve meant by "Eternal Rome."
A traditional liturgy encompasses all of the spiritual tradition of that rite. As they tell you when converting to Orthodoxy, we learn more from the prayer of the Church than from any book. The same holds true for the west. Although my argument has always been that the Novus Ordo doesn't encompass of western theology and spirituality. Of course it's all there in the Tridentine Mass.
Given that rite follows tradition, how can someone who is intellectually RC, worship regularly in an EC church? Certainly the ECs have betrayed a lot of their heritage but the core of the liturgy is still eastern (at least for now until they finally "reform" it away). So there's a huge disconnect between the ultramontanist beliefs of the typical conservative RC and the eastern tradition. On the flip side, I'm not a huge fan of the "oh I love icons" thing in the west. I think western Catholics should explore their own traditions.
IMHO, Lurking underneath the words of RC epologists is the assumption that the west is superior. They won't come out and say it but they truly do believe that the western idea of original sin is right and the eastern idea is wrong. (conversely a lot of Orthodox believe that the west is wrong and the east is right) Both sides forget that for the first 1000 years of the Church, these two ideas coexisted. We can argue right and wrong about the things that happened post 1054 but not before.
Getting back to the subject, this lurking feeling of superiority underpins the accusations against Todd, ie. certainly he can 'play' eastern and do the icons and the funny liturgy but we're better and he needs to acknowledge it. I don't think some of them realize that they are forcing the ECs to adopt an RC way of understanding the faith. To them, it's not RC, it's right, i.e. everyone needs Thomism.
Sorry for rambling.
Och -- maybe you missed my question above (or I missed your answer.) I was wondering where D.B. Hart said he rejected Palamism.
RG
Dear Owen and Jennifer and all,
1. Is the holy fire for real? And if so, what does that mean for Orthodox who don't follow the old calendar? [I've read it only falls according to O.C. date for Easter]
2. Granted the Lord can work miracles by a Mennonite saint, though I haven't seen any bilocating Mennonites lately! My confusion with fellows like Padre Pio is that his ministry seems so intertwined with obedience to the Pope and Roman Church.
3. Following on that last, what are we to do with one such as Bernadette of Lourdes, whose body is incorrupt? This seems so tied in with the claimed apparition of Mary at Lourdes, stating, "I am the immaculate conception", which I gather is not an idea most Orthodox receive.
In other words, granted that miracles happen everywhere by the superabundant grace of God, what do you do with Western saints who seem so tied in to their Roman Catholicism?
Joy in Christ our God, and may the prayers of Theotokos uphold you.
Grano1,
I'm not aware that Hart denies Palamism in published works. But in private emails with Perry, he has indicated that Palamas' view-points are a waste of time, among other things.
Photios
seraph: I find the stories of the holy fire at least as credible as the tales you mention about Padre Pio and St. Bernadette. As to the Old Calendar I think you may have a misunderstanding - virtually all Orthodox (both so-called "Old Calendar" and "New Calendar") follow the same calendar for determining the date of Pascha. There is a tiny minority who don't - in Finland I believe - and what it means for them is they are celebrating Pascha on a date different from the one when the holy fire appears. As to whether this bothers them, you'd have to ask them.
Matthias
Photios and Perry,
Don't you think it is a bit tacky, at least, to accuse a distinguished Orthodox thelogian of heresy on a blog, based on the content of private correspondence?
Matthias
seraph,
granted that miracles happen everywhere by the superabundant grace of God
Demons can also perform such deeds. When an icon weeps (and it has been determined that there is no physical cause, i.e. fraud) in an Orthodox church bishops are supposed to be brought in to discern the spiritual nature of the miracle. It is not assumed that every weeping icon is a manifestation of holiness. Bilocation is not a proof of holiness. Some saints have done it, but the fact that one has done it does not proove anything about the sancity of the person who performs the miracle or the communion to which that person belongs. That said, it is possible that someone could hold wrong views about Rome and still exhibit sanctity. People who are wrong about things, even religious things, are not thereby completely incapable of holy acts and holy living. Of course, being correct helps.
Matthias,
1) I have never called Hart a heretic. I would refrain from doing so since it is difficult to say what he [would] believe come push or shove.
2) I would not call a fellow Orthodox christian a heretic if they are in good standing with their local Bishop (in which I have little reason to doubt). Whether Hart is a heretic is not for me to judge, but between he, his local bishop, a local synod, and/or Christ. However, having read through his published works and witnessed emails between he and others, I believe him to be in error as a private theologian.
3) Distinguished theologian is relative to whom is making the claim. In that respect, I find only those who support the 2nd European agenda to consider him a distinguished theologian. So I do not concede the point that he is a distinguished Orthodox theologian. For me, that is a very high-caliber label—in which I would include these type of men:
Georges Florovsky is a distinguished Orthodox theologian.
John Romanides is a distinguished Orthodox theologian.
Archbishop Chrysostomos of Etna, CA is a distinguished Orthodox theologian.
Vladimir Lossky is a distinguished Orthodox theologian.
John Meyendorff is a distinguished Orthodox theologian.
Metropolitan John Zizoulas is a distinguished Orthodox theologian.
You get the picture…
Photios
"John Romanides is a distinguished Orthodox theologian."
Can we really say that Romanides is a distinguished theologian? He did not understand the west but this didn't prevent him from pontificating about it.
I read his Ancestral Sin about a year ago and was amazed at how ignorant he was about Roman Catholic theology. That would be fine if he had limited himself to discussing eastern theology.
And there aren't many serious historians who take his theories about the Franks seriously. Again, one needn't be a respected historian to be a distinguished theologian, but it does hurt his credibility.
"Melkite Archbishop Zoghby, who in connection with the First Vatican Council has said that, ". . . valid or not, Vatican I has the same designation as the Council of Lyons, a 'general' synod of the West. With this designation it is neither ecumenical nor infallible and could produce only theological opinions that cannot be imposed on anyone." [Archbishop Zoghby, "Ecumenical Reflections"],"
Mr. Kaster,
I'm sorry, but this doesn't make any sense. It is like saying that I accept traffic laws but, "of course the one about stopping at a red light doesn't apply to me." Rome intended this council to be binding on the whole Church infallibly. You cannot read another intention into it.
As an ex-EC and ex-acquaintance of many of your acqaintances, I understand and respect your state vis. Orthodoxy and the Roman Church. The major problem that I see, however, is that you are trapped in an inconsistency. For what is the point of being in communion with Rome if you want to change Rome? If Rome can change on this infallibly defined doctrine that you do not like, why then would it not be able to change on doctrines you might find more appealing, like the whole "culture of death" issues on which many Orthodox admire Rome's consistency? The Rome you would want would not be Rome anymore, simply put.
Your situation is like getting into a marriage with a wayward woman in order to change her. This, however is very foolish: marry the woman for who she is, not for who you want her to be. Rome is not going to change just because a tiny minority of Eastern Catholics wants it to. Rome is about power, money and influence, and Eastern Catholics and (lets face it) Eastern Orthodox have none. Is it any suprise, then, that Cardinal Kasper can visit Taize one week, an Anglican meeting with women priest another week, women Lutheran bishops another week, and then if he has time fit in the Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch. It's all about Roman jurisdictional hustling and jockeying for position. Theology... that get lost somewhere in the mix.
This being said, if you are happy at the Byzantine Catholic Church you attend, all power to you. Please pray for me and light a candle in front of the icon of the Theotokos for me. But at lease be realistic about where you stand.
Photios,
Can we get Staniloae on that list also, please?
Jennifer,
I couldn't disagree with you more about Romanides. What parts do you think he gets wrong about Western theology? And I believe his thinking about the Franks is quite sound, though incomplete. I find him quite sharp and keen of the gnostic methods of subversion in the West. I will always remain a staunch Romanides supporter.
I haven't seen books like this written about many Orthodox theologians:
http://www.amazon.com/Prophet-Roman-Orthodoxy-Theology-Romanides/dp/0919672256/sr=8-4/qid=1159815516/ref=sr_1_4/102-6824699-2018531?ie=UTF8&s=books
Cantemir,
Yes Staniloae should be on that list too. The list is only an example.
Photios
When talking about distinguished theologians it is important to remember who is doing the distinguishing. All of the theologians on Photius' list are recognized as distinguished within Orthodoxy. Whatever views one has regarding Hart, one has to admit that Hart is primarily being distinguished in two arenas: first the Eerdman's/Pro Ecclesia/First Things set, and second the hip young public theologian role played in the Wall Street Journal - New Atlantis - The New Criterion - as well as certain of his First Things essays. In the first case he is distinguished primarily by conservative Lutherans, conservative Episcopalians, and conservative Catholics (along with a hodge podge of other conservative Protestants), and in the second case he is distinguished by a generic group of political and social conservatives. He has not yet been distinguished as an Orthodox theologian by Orthodox theologians.
I am increasingly aware of Orthodox intellectuals and academics who are pulling away from Hart a bit and letting him do his own thing. Hart may have a wonderful and brilliant career ahead of him. His vocabulary is astounding and when one first reads him there is a certain charm to his prose. But as time goes on, I am less inclined to think that Hart will have much influence on Orthodoxy, and therefore it is unlikely that Orthodox will recognize him as a distinguished Orthodox theologian. What is occurring right now is simply a wee bit of pride that one of our fellows has his name all over the place, gets praise from all sorts of Western Christians, and is clearly very intelligent. I used to think that the phenomenon of Hart was very important for Orthodoxy in the West, and I admit that I would like to see more Orthodox thinkers of his caliber on the public scene. Maybe that is a bit of my own triumphalist leanings coming through.
As for non-Orthodox conservative Christians, if they are not Calvinists they love Hart, and in a certain sense, they should. Hart simultaneously embraces the West and whips its disaffections and disorders at the same time. He does so without any of the Eastern nomenclature which makes Westerners so uncomfortable. One would be tempted to say that his rhetorical style mimics that of Western intelligentsia, but Hart has a writing style that is all his own. Instead of a mimic, he may be some sort of rhetorical avant garde mime. Anyway, he has this way of miming the West, rhetorically, which I used to think was a brilliant attempt at recapitulating Western thought. Perhaps it is. Then again, perhaps it is just really good rhetorical mime. Either way it is fascinating prose. Several friends who are specialists in various fields (historical theology, philosophy, history) have told me over the years that Hart's gloss of this or that which pertains to their field is painted with too broad a brush. I must say that some of Hart's comments on Calvin and Calvinism in his last little ditty on suffering struck me as such that could only have been written by a man who has not read much Calvin or much Calvinist thought (though, of course, I agree with Hart on Calvinism in the end). But for the most part non-Orthodox Christain intellectualish types don't care about Hart being off here or there. They just think that it is really cute that the three Hart brothers ended up in Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and continuing Anglicanism, respectively. It is cute; it is also so very American. Come to think of it, Hart's more popular prose is sometimes like the modern American film versions of Jane Austen novels -- a lot of that great old language is there, and a stylization of the old style is there, but it is all made cool and and shortened for American consumption.
Photios,
Just out of curiosity, in what theological matters does Hart fall into error? This is off-topic. If it wouldn't be too much trouble, could you shoot me a quick email at:
juliogurrea AT yahoo DOT com
Thanks.
-Julio
But no triumphalism here. How silly of me for even entertaining such a notion.
Everybody has to concede a bit now and again, Gabriel.
Yeah sure, I'm a triumphalist, we're all triumphalists, you say tomato, I say tomato... Let's call the whole thing off, which is what the post was about, right?
I'd also like thoughts on how Romanides or Hart are off, on Catholic or Orthodox theology....
Och -- regarding your comments on Hart; one very learned and pious Orthodox priest that I know considers Hart the best young Orthodox theologian now working, in some measure because of a couple things you mention: his hestitancy to constantly beat up on the West, and his ability to speak to the West in their terms. Now it is true that he hasn't been widely accepted by the American Orthodox yet, but I wonder how much of that is the fact that he is A) a convert and B) not connected with the St. Vlad's crowd, who seem to have somewhat of a monopoly on Orthodox publishing and communication in the U.S. In a sense he is outside the normal loop of Orthodoxy in America.
Mr. Grano,
Both points are well taken. I think that one might add that it would not take much to be the best young Orthodox theologian who is an American (Fr. John Behr is at St. Vlad's but he is British, Behr is also a historical theologian which is not very trendy), unfortunately there is not a lot of competition in that category at the moment. Also, if Hart is going to be recognized as a distinguished Orthodox theologian by the Orthodox theological community he is going to have to engage it directly. He has not yet done this, instead focusing his attention elsewhere. I would very much like to see him engage our theological community, because then we would have a better grasp of the manner in which his theology relates to the rest of Orthodox thought. But I have a sneaking suspicion that he is not interested in such an engagement. I hope I am wrong.
As for a detailed discussion of Hart's theology, that must wait for another post. I hope to get to that subject, but I have been thinking that I would wait until his next book comes out in February, which I plan to read as soon as I can get my hands on a copy.
"I would very much like to see him engage our theological community, because then we would have a better grasp of the manner in which his theology relates to the rest of Orthodox thought."
I agree with you here; that there is a certain distancing from the rest of the Orthodox theological community is apparent. As to why that is, is hard to answer. I'm sure time will tell.
Grano and anonymous,
Hart's views expressed to me are hardly a state secret. His express rejection of Palamism is not hid away in some vault. So one could know about his rejection of Palamism without my personal correspondence.
Moreover, it shouldn't take much thinking that material he has written is incompatible with a Palamite view on theology proper. I take him to be like Swinburne. A brillant convert who is essentially a Latin who rejects the Papacy.
How one can reject the teaching of a SAINT who's feast day is the Sunday of Orthodoxy is beyond me. It would be a good idea then to pray that Hart conforms to the teaching of the Church's saints.
It is with some difficulty that I can comment on this, for a past pastoral relationship clouds interaction between me and Al. But Al, when you say that
"The accusation of triumphalism is specious. Only triumphalists enter into internet debate. We all know that."
... you are wrong. What I know from twenty years of doing this is that internet discussions are dominated and distorted by the obdurate, but that other people do try to participate. Mostly they get driven away by the ideologues, but some with greater stamina do manage to tough it out for long period. "Everybody does it" is of course a bankrupt position, but it is especially so when everyone does not do it.
I too noticed the problem with the Orthodox presence and the schitzophrenia around it, and how the ugly fact of Western schism inevitably reared its head. I confess a sense of schadenfreude, given that I was one of the driven away Anglicans.
At the risk of drawing this flagging discussion still further from its main channel, I heard that Hart was working on a new book. Is that so? Anyone know what it's about?
Douglas,
All I know is that Amazon has this: http://www.amazon.com/Christian-Revolution-David-Bentley-Hart/dp/0300111908/sr=8-2/qid=1159919104/ref=pd_bbs_2/002-3004737-4049603?ie=UTF8&s=books
Och & Wt,
Sorry to take a cirtitous route to the main point, but I think my posts do so. Indeed, I think that the cyberspace record shows that, on several occassion on Triumphications, I was tagged teamed with snide, ad hominens by WT and ML (and also with Fr. Patrick Henry Reardon, all three Hart brothers, and Al). When I responed (on the merits, not to the ad hominems), the characteristic reply was "I have been insulted by Death Bredon's post!" Hence, the death of Pontifications as a debating ground is not sad occassion for me, as the merits were rarely taken up, except by a few Anglicans and Orthodox outside Al's self-congratulatory, condescending, annointed, inner-circle.
Ah well, let the public judge. My purpose is not to personally insult WT, but rather giving the cyberspace public a warning about my experiences and that it might want to tread carefully with the aforemention folks lest its enjoys unwarranted perjorative, patronizing, public comments or dubios debating tactics. For instance, the latter are exposed and dismantled in this very thread by Och's clear-headed posts.
Death Bredon, I'm following this closely as I know several of these folks personally: in your post above are you saying that WT, ML, Fr. Reardon, the Hart's and Al have all hit you with "snide ad hominems" on Pontifications?
The most significant criticism of fellow Orthodox that I recall Hart making in his published work is found in the early pages of his essay "Bright Morning of the Soul," which appeared in Pro Ecclesia several years ago. He takes exception to what he perceives to be metaphysical excesses/distortions in Lossky's anti-filioquism, using Gregory of Nyssa as a corrective.
I'd have to excavate my copy to say more.
He was a featured speaker at the St. Vladimir's Summer Institute this past year. His talk on death is available for free from the SVS Press website. Anyone know what to make of that connection?
Mark,
Gregory of Nyssa is not a corrective on the filioque, at least when we understand that Nyssa is the most "NeoPlatonic" of the Cappadocians in a few works, but the Contra Eunomium is anti-Hellenistic to the core. So in that sense, we could quote Nyssa vs. Nyssa. In Contra Eunomium we see the full developed thought, which would in essence be "anti-filioquist" in its thinking and theological method. It's impossible to fit the filioque into the patristic ordo theologiae of persons -- energies/operations -- essence. See my paper on Gregory of Nyssa on my blog.
Hart's real good on free-will and the atonment, though it'd be interesting how he would gloss the type of freedom that the Saints have in the Eschaton (enter Farrell).
Photios
Fr. Reardon--now there is a sharp biblical exegete. I wouldn't go after him. The man has great understanding of gnosticism too. That's someone who you want to mimic, even if he's a part of the Touch Stone group. There's a whole lot to learn from him.
Thanks, Photios. Now I definitely need to find that article, because I could certainly be wrong about his comments.
Hart is obviously quite taken with Gregory of Nyssa... I must confess that I get lost pretty quickly when I tried to read him.
Hopefully, your paper will shed some light and give me a road map.
Ecclesiastes 1:9,14 "What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done; and there is nothing new under the sun.... I have seen everything that is done under the sun; and behold, all is vanity and a striving after wind."
Nothing new under the sun...
http://catholica.pontifications.net/?p=483
I regret that I have spent so much effort on vanity and striving after wind. Two more years of people talking AT each other rather than TO each other. Poor Al Kimel, for having been so optmistic as to think things might ever change.
Thanks for that link crimson, I had not read that thread in years and had forgotten about how nasty it was. That said, I do not see how any civil person could read it and not view the Hart brothers as rude and arrogant. They also reveal, from a certain point of view, incompetence. And the thing we must remember is that ultimately Perry did make his case, and most of the Catholic intellectuals had to admit, at the very least, that Perry's arguments regarding ADS were not backwater nonsense, but reflected concerns which have been published by a braod spectrum of well respected academics, and that the issue is not as simple as the Hart brother's style of gloss found in this thread. Agreement was certainly not reached, but I think that by the power of his argumentation (a power that was clearly respected or it would not have been engaged to the extent that it was) Perry was somewhat vindicated.
This thread also reminds me of something I have now heard from several sources, and that is that whatever one thinks of David B. Hart's prose, the man sure seems to be a pompous ass.
For the record, I have been told that D.B. Hart carried on his unengaging diatribe against Perry on a private email forum to which Perry did not belong. When finally forced to confront the content of Perry's arguments, Hart retracted some of the things he had prior stated with regard to Perry.
I think that I have now read (and re-read) all, or nearly all of Perry's comments in the Pontifications archives. I, for one, agree with Perry' assessment of the rhetorical situation. Lest some belittle him too strongly for his tone they should remember that from the beginning he was tritely dismissed, accused of intellectual immaturity, and told that he had not read enough. As the years went on, he clearly showed that his arguments were at least worthy of response and often quite formidable, and he clearly showed that he had a grasp of the issues at hand. I would also venture to say that he made it quite clear that he was better read than his opponents on many, if not all, of the matters debated.
One last thing. Those who read this blog know that I am an observer and critic of blindly anti-Western sentiments and arguments posed by Orthodox. I have written at some length on this issue here and in other forums. In my estimation, the biggest straw man in the field is the accusation that Perry is a typical anti-Western Orthodox. I know the anti-West Orthodox set. They do not read what Perry Robinson reads. They do not argue the way he argues.
CrimsonCatholic, you are quite wrong if you think the debates on pontifications didn't accomplish anything. As one long time reader who usually knew enough to duck when the arrows started flying, I can confidently say I learned a LOT from the debates on that forum, even when they were far out of my academic league.
Yes, some of the debates got ugly. But that does not mean they were of no value. Punches were thrown at the Council of Nicea, but the council was hardly "all vanity" as a result.
Matthias
"That said, I do not see how any civil person could read it and not view the Hart brothers as rude and arrogant."
They were rude and arrogant in response to what they perceived as a rude and arrogant attempt to demand answers without the slightest hint of actually listening to them. Thinking that one has a good argument is no excuse for using others as a sounding board or a punching bag. If you aren't actually going to listen to what someone says, but rather to use it to figure out how you would shoot it down, that isn't respectful dialogue. Hart's intellectual condescension was ridiculous, but his point of the lack of intellectual charity involved in neo-Palamism is dead on. Westerners aren't viewed as human beings with intelligent, well-considered, informed opinions, but targets. Pontifications was intended to produce dialogue to the extent that dialogue could take place, not people berating those they didn't consider intellectually qualified to respond.
"They also reveal, from a certain point of view, incompetence."
And there you go. It couldn't possibly be that they knew and reasonably disagreed.
"And the thing we must remember is that ultimately Perry did make his case, and most of the Catholic intellectuals had to admit, at the very least, that Perry's arguments regarding ADS were not backwater nonsense, but reflected concerns which have been published by a braod spectrum of well respected academics, and that the issue is not as simple as the Hart brother's style of gloss found in this thread."
And yet, the fact that they are concerns of a "broad spectrum of well respected academics" has not in the least convinced those same Catholic intellectuals that the charges had any merit. We'll just as cheerfully say that Stump, Kretzmann, Bradshaw, and Hughes, despite their academic credentials, are mistaken in their interpretation of St. Thomas. Admittedly, Hart's intellectual condescension was ridiculous; plenty of smart people hold the position, so stupidity isn't the problem. But smart people holding the position doesn't make it right. What Hart should have said, and would have been correct to say, is that there are lots of smart people who have been wrong about the West even on the Western side, and the goal ought to be first to get the understanding to be as correct as possible. The lack of intellectual charity in that particular exchange was appalling, but it ran both ways (and continues to do so).
"Agreement was certainly not reached, but I think that by the power of his argumentation (a power that was clearly respected or it would not have been engaged to the extent that it was) Perry was somewhat vindicated."
No, it was a waste for exactly that reason. The power of his argumentation was irrelevant, because he never actually convinced anyone that either Augustine or Aquinas taught divine simplicity as Perry conceived it. He viewed it as obvious and undeniable that they did; we Catholics all viewed it as equally obvious that they didn't, so it was precisely at the point of conflicting intuitions that no dialogue OR argumentation took place. That's practically the definition of wasted dialogue.
"When finally forced to confront the content of Perry's arguments, Hart retracted some of the things he had prior stated with regard to Perry."
Well, he certainly should have. His intellectual condescension was ridiculous, and the rant itself was an extended exercise in question-begging on the premise that Western and Eastern views of divine simplicity were identical. I happen to think that he is substantively RIGHT about that, but it's no excuse to be, as you put it, "a pompous ass."
"Lest some belittle him too strongly for his tone they should remember that from the beginning he was tritely dismissed, accused of intellectual immaturity, and told that he had not read enough."
Well, that is ordinarily what one ought to expect when walks in demanding an answer to one's "irrefutable" argument. That's intellectual immaturity almost per se, and that had nothing to do with him being Orthodox, as if Orthodox thinkers were the red-headed stepchildren of Christian thought. I've never seen that sort of fishing for counter-arguments in either of my academic fields except from idiot undergraduates. It's just a dumb way to start things, and it taints the whole discussion. Showing off the bibliography later doesn't help, because it can't buy back your credibility. Again, it's a wasted opportunity for dialogue.
"As the years went on, he clearly showed that his arguments were at least worthy of response and often quite formidable, and he clearly showed that he had a grasp of the issues at hand."
The argumentation problem was second-level in the responses, not first-level. At this point, Perry genuinely doesn't understand why we disagree with him, and we genuinely don't understand why he doesn't. But this strategy of "Answer me, or else!" has poisoned the well, so we'll never know.
I love Perry; I think he's a great guy. But I don't think I can talk to him or Daniel meaningfully on East/West subjects, because I don't think they would ever actually listen to me. That's the waste in the whole thing.
"I would also venture to say that he made it quite clear that he was better read than his opponents on many, if not all, of the matters debated."
Maybe on certain subjects, but what would it matter? When your credibility is shot to the point that you can't be trusted to give the literature a charitable read, no one with any skepticism is going to listen. And Perry ought to know that his position on Thomas is controversial, meaning that he ought to be giving detailed arguments at this point, not asserting the bibliography. The fact that he is doing that, against one of James Ross's students no less, isn't helping his credibility, particularly when he gives cursory responses to other scholars who openly take a contrary position on Thomas(e.g., Gregory Rocca, David Burrell).
"In my estimation, the biggest straw man in the field is the accusation that Perry is a typical anti-Western Orthodox. I know the anti-West Orthodox set. They do not read what Perry Robinson reads. They do not argue the way he argues."
It doesn't matter whether he is or isn't typical. The feature that Hart and others find objectionable is rendering dialogue impossible.
"But that does not mean they were of no value. Punches were thrown at the Council of Nicea, but the council was hardly 'all vanity' as a result."
I don't say that they were valueless in the sense that mutual monologue is somewhat valuable. But from a dialogue perspective, they were useless; there was no reason for the participants to even be talking to one another. It's ironic that you bring up Nicaea, because the Nicenes and the non-Nicenes were basically at the point of not being able to talk to each other meaningfully either (Richard Paul Vaggione covers this well in _Eunomius of Cyzicus and the Nicene Revolution_), and I was just wondering whether we haven't reached that point here, whether the sides are so philosophically hardened that dialogue is impossible. It sure looks that way.
That's what I mean by regret. I invested effort in this because I thought it would further dialogue. If it's simply a matter of me being a little smarter or better-read, then plenty of people already have qualifications eclipsing mine.
crimson,
No, it was a waste for exactly that reason. The power of his argumentation was irrelevant, because he never actually convinced anyone that either Augustine or Aquinas taught divine simplicity as Perry conceived it.
But there you are wrong good sir. He convinced me.
As for the rest of your interpretation of the rhetorical situation, clearly we disagree and have quite different readings of the texts at hand. I believe that Perry's initial comments are such that the Harts could have responded in terms of content. I would only respond to the overall caricature you make of Perry by saying that the changes that one sees in the strategy of argument against Perry (over the years that ADS was debated) support my position. You are clearly entrenched in your position that Perry is supremely wrong. I am committed to the belief that Perry was right. Other than representing the different sides of this debate the only difference between us is that you, apparently, have always held the opinion which you do. I, on the other hand, have not. I once strongly disagreed with Perry on Palamas, and I once believed in ADS. It was through the work of Perry and Photius and the authors they recommended that I came to change my views. Fortunately, when they gave a cursory response (which time sometimes demands), they often pointed readers to writings which supported their postition; if not always on Pontifications, very often on Energies of the Trinity.
against one of James Ross's students no less
That's cute. Mike L. is a very bright man. And he has spent now many hours of his life in debate with Perry, and to Mike L's credit, he does not frame the debate so much in terms of "credibility" as he does in terms of the problems he has with given ideas. I disagree with Mike L. on many a thing, but the man merits the title philosopher. He merits it not merely because he studied under Ross. He merits it because he has done the work and has the mind to back it up. Very, very few, if any, of Mike's allies in the debate had his skills, though many thought they did.
But we do agree on one thing. Dialogue, in any meaningful sense, is impossible. But allow a caveat. It is impossible among those who have read the pertinent texts and are familiar with the other camp's arguments. Neo-Catholics love the rhetorically soft Orthodox who don't disagree with them about Catholic terms, but what those Catholics do not understand is that those soft Orthodox are either condescending (often for reasons of charity) to their Catholic friends or they simply do not understand the import of the issues at hand. Many Catholics expect us Orthodox to keep quiet about the epistemological gulf that exists between us -- for to do otherwise is considered rude or brutish or uncharitable, what have you. I, however, think that it is important for us Orthodox that we at times name that gulf, and that we do so in the manner that Perry has done, which is to actually be familiar with all pertinent texts and to understand the epistemological gravitas involved. After the Pontifications debate I am not sure that we share enough terms to have a meaningful disagreement. Though we certainly have learned the other's polemical strategies better, which is useful to both sides. But we do see the epistemological incompatibility which points us to that even greater "ontological difference" of which His All-Holiness Bartholomew has famously mentioned. I do not think that this has to do with being philosophically hardened, but simply that one understands and assents to his own tradition. We assent to different Traditions. One of these Traditions is true, the other is false, and they are contrary in many essential respects. But there is a difference even in how we view ourselves as different. Catholics believe that Orthodox are only as different as they choose to be at the given moment, that it would only take a change of heart for them to see that there need not be any substantial difference - it is all the making of that rebellious Orthodox imagination. Orthodox, however, view Catholics as committed to ways of thinking which are, and have long been, at odds with the Apostolic faith. These erroneous ways of thinking have so permeated Catholic theology and culture that to engage Catholic theology or culture at a specific point is usually futile. Nonetheless, that engagement, or lack thereof made evident in the attempt, helps Orthodox better comprehend just what lies between us.
Thank you for your comment.
Jonathan,
I don’t wish to get into a drawn out fight with you but let me make a few rejoinders. If smart people holding the position doesn’t make it right, then this is certainly true for Catholic intellectuals who aren’t convinced by the types of arguments I put forward. The fact that smart people think I am wrong says pretty much nothing.
And even between authors who disagree on how Thomas should be read (Hughes and Stump for example) they both agree that there is a genuine problem, which is very odd if it were a matter of the way one reads Thomas. And my list of “testers” isn’t limited to those above. Likewise, I have good reasons for thinking that on alternative readings of Thomas given by Rocca and Burrell that they either do not solve the problem but only relocate it, as did Sullivan’s stuff on Scotism or that their alternative reading of Thomas is wrong. Burrell certainly has some interpretive howlers when it comes to Thomas’s understanding of divine responsiveness which is directly related to ADS and free divine activity.
Hart was brought in by his brother to intimidate me. Robert Hart told DBH that I was a Nominalist, that I thought God was temporally everlasting and that I was a voluntarist with respect to the divine will. DBh assumed I was some analytic Wolterstorffian simpleton railing about ADS, when in fact, this was not the case. And I dare say, my initial querries and pointing to ADS as a problem and motivation in much of western theology was quite tame and then by and large only directed at Daniel Jones, with whom I was conversing. If I recall correctly, and on this I could be wrong, but you didn't even show up until signficantly later. It was only after being routinely insulted and dismissed by people who hadn’t done the reading, let alone discuss the problem with contemporary experts in the field, including students of Ross, that I put on the boxing gloves, because they demanded as much.
I didn’t need to convince people re: ADS and A/A. That is what the scholarly literature was for. I let people read the literature and make their own judgment because I am convinced that it supports how I understand simplicity in those thinkers. As Gilson noted, Augustine’s conception of the essence remained “essentially pagan.” Gilson, for whatever his faults was not misreading Augustine there and subsequent work overturning Gilson’s reading of Thomas and correcting some of his features of Augustine, haven’t overturned that point, only accentuated it. Aquinas is no follower of Aristotle when it comes to being but is a good NeoPlatonist. Besides, I convinced lots of people. I know, I have heard about their chrismations. ;)
The fact of the matter is, that the Catholics on that blog didn’t know which way was up on ADS for nearly a year. They formed a view of ADS in reaction to my arguments and comments groping around in the dark trying to find an answer, so much so that they tossed at me the usual replies assuming that I had never read them and not even bothering to ask if I had and my judgment concerning them. Besides, if the dialog was such a waste, you wouldn’t have bought so many books off my wish list on Aquinas et al. ;)
I didn’t walk in demanding answers. I raised the possibility of a problem, and that in a quite attenuated manner. It was after the abuse that I demanded that they hold themselves to the same standard-put up or shut up. I wouldn’t had needed to “show off” bibliography, if the Catholics there had claimed I didn’t know what I was talking about, or if they had known what they were talking about. When people told me that I need to read the literature, I responded appropriately which is why *you* went and read the literature.
I think I do understand why you disagree with me and I think I have good reasons for thinking that your interpretation of the requisite texts is either in the end worthless or mistaken. In fact, I don't think you sufficiently grasp what esse is and neither does Rocca it seems.
Moreover, we have eaten together Jonathan. I have and do listen to you, especially when we are sharing Mongolian food and you aren’t in “lawyer mode.” I have always made it clear that I thought it was possible for some reconciliation conceptually but I didn’t see how and I still don't. I said as much to you acros the table. It would matter that I was better read on those certain subjects which were the focus of the debate, which disproves the accusations made against me both professionally and personally, so that is kind of why it would matter. When Stump, Davies, and others give Thomas a “charitable read” (you’d think they would being Thomists) and admit that there is still a significant problem, I don’t think their credibility is shot and consequently mine either.
I don’t think that my interpretation of Thomas is controversial, only the conclusions I draw from it. And besides, when you convict a major theologian of a major goof, it is natural to expect it to be controversial. There is little in philosophical theology that isn’t. Consequently, the noting of controversy of itself does no work for you.
I didn’t interact with Burrell for a good reason, primarily because Burrell doesn’t offer what I take to be a significant answer to the problem and engaging him would require a detailed and lengthy argument to show why his interpretation of Thomas at key points is implausible or mistaken or makes things worse, not better. I didn’t find Rocca’s stuff that helpful either and neither did other scholars that I have interacted with. You’ll have to excuse me for not writing down literally everything I reason through. On a BLOG, I thought it was sufficient to make a formal argument, point to specific texts for support and then give bibliography. My opponents did nothing other than this and nothing more, and most usually far less than this.
My major point initially was, regardless of agreement or not, I put my finger on where the locus of disagreement lies. I only pushed that I was actually right about Rome being wrong when pressed to do so. I am funny that way, I do try to meet my own burdens of proof.
The rendering of “dialog” impossible is usually what we find between two incommensurable models. If one wishes “dialog” then some significant measure of conceptual common, though not neutral ground needs to be demonstrated. Perhaps I missed it in the flurry of posts but I don’t remember seeing it over on Pontifications. The most I ever got was Catholic liver shivers that "gee don't we all beleive the same thing?"
BTW, thanks for the pricy book on Cyril.
Perry,
This is it in a nut-shell: We weren't prepared for you on a 10 year time frame or more. You had already read the literature that introduced the problem and then introduced it to me. At best, I was only able to identify a significant problem, but you went further, not only had you identified the problem, you had done a lot of leg work in providing a solution. Withought having to decode what in the world Lossky or Romanides was saying, your solution, and better yet THE MAN (Farrell), was a solution that no one had heard of from an Augustinian Protestant or Roman Catholic point-of-view. "It was the equivalent to detonating a hydrogen bomb in a philosophical cathedral built out of tinker toys and lincoln logs," as he says.
Jonathan,
I think we do listen to you and others on there. I admit I have much to learn from medieval theologians and in particular the Franciscan tradition. But regarding the debates on the filioque, I feel we've reached the point of all that you and others have to offer. It gets to be the same answers. I've read just about everything there is to offer on that topic and have dialogued with a scholar in particular that is one of the best you have to offer regarding that topic (one of my prof's). We recognize we get to a point of an impasse and decide to close the dialogue because of *mutual* recognition of incompatibility, not to mention our friendship. The problem at that point is no longer understanding but choice. His solution is toleration based on believing that the filioque is a part of the Latin tradition and development of doctrine. Mine is conversion (Though not necessarily a capitulation to being EASTERN. As I believe the same frame-work, using different vocabulary, of the patristic ordo theologiae existed in the Latin tradition in St. Hippolytus, St. Hilary, St. Ambrose, and St. Gregory that is not Augustinian and is fully compatible with the Cappadocian model if not identical) based on an understanding that so-called Latins are not filioquists. One of us is in the true Church of Christ, one of us is not: each person has their own choice to make in that regard. The Orthodox have judged the filioque to be heretical doctrine, and I have not found that we are mistaken on that judgment or in understanding what we have judged. At some point dialogue must cease and the gospel must be proclaimed where one believes that to be. I will say that I do apologize for any brashness, arrogance, or lack of charity that I have displayed in our course of dialogue.
Perhaps, the quintessential point that one is left with is not choice, and I am wrong, and they are [some how] compatible. If one is to be "scholarly" (in Augustinian Western terms), I guess they probably should be open to that possibility (as most modernists and neo-modernists are), but realizing what is a part of dogmatic theology in Orthodoxy, how can one be and be committed to the One True Church. It is a pickel no doubt, same as what one is committed to with respect to the papal dogma. One wonders at this point, how I actually left Roman Catholicism if I was truly committed to the papacy. In reverse Newman style, I always believed the papacy because I believed that what she taught to be the truth and not the other way around (not knowing Orthodoxy) regardless of what modern theology might have thought of that ordo. In other words, I followed the *person* of Augustine here (especially his thinking on the Unity of the Church) of whom I was influenced the most, rather than Newman's way. Of course, in becoming Orthodox I didn't have to modify that belief as this is what Orthodox theologians believe with regard to the Church and apostolic succession. In that respect, I believe I am very "Augustine" like.
Photios
Pseudo-Iamblichus,
You may not like or agree with what Zoghby has said about the Western "general" synods, but from what I have read about the "working document" that is being discussed in the international Catholic / Orthodox dialogue, is that it does precisely what Zoghby does, i.e., it demotes the councils of the West to "general" synods that are ultimately not binding upon the East. I think that the hierarchy of the Roman Church -- unlike the laity of the Latin Rite -- knows that the Eastern Orthodox will never accept the Western councils as authoritative. In my opinion the Western councils will one day be irrelevant.
God bless,
Todd
Owen:
"But there you are wrong good sir. He convinced me."
Of course, and Daniel before that, and others whom he mentioned. I meant in the context of anyone who had studied the issues in depth and come to the opposite conclusion (which I think both Michael S. and L. have, as well as Phil Blosser, Dennis Martin, and a handful of others). I would hope that I'm not making a caricature of Perry; I just think he lacks the motivation to give the same effort to being critical of Orthodoxy as he does to being critical of Catholicism. Maybe it's just because I, like many lawyers, am habitually my own worst critic, so I recognize my own weaknesses in excruciating detail. At any rate, my point was that the dialogue that I wanted to take place was over whether it was true that there was indeed an "epistemological gulf" at all, whether the texts actually call for that. It seems pretty clear that you perceive no doubt about this point, meaning that, as you say, there is nothing to discuss.
Perry:
"I don’t wish to get into a drawn out fight..."
Me either. :-)
Suffice it to say that I don't understand your motivation, and I evidently never did. To me, if the audience in question is reading Burrell and Rocca, then it doesn't matter whether you consider them important or not, because the people to whom you are talking do. I'm not saying that Rocca and Burrell have the answers (in many case, they haven't even considered the questions), but they are quite useful for framing what the issues might look like from a Thomist perspective, so that's an area where the detail is going to be helpful to Catholics. When the owner of the blog flat out asks you, "well, what about these guys?," it seems like the decent thing to do would be to devote some time to answering that question, assuming that you are trying to actually communicate your views. If you made your motivations plain, then there wouldn't have been the hostility in response, so it's clear that you didn't get that across.
That's the sense of "not listening" that I mean. It's more or less a lack of motivation to treat the concerns seriously. Perhaps I am reading it wrong, but ordinarily, the fact that one's dialogue partner considers some or another issue important is reason enough to treat it seriously, irrespective of your own estimation of its importance. Conversely, though, you can's assume something ought to be of interest to one's dialogue partner because it is interesting or significant to you. That, to me, is what civilized conversation is about: trying to communicate about why one *personally* places importance on some or another concept. It's all well and good to say, as Owen does, that Orthodox have this emphasis and Catholics have this other emphasis, but if you never get to the actual reasons why that particular person does, then there was no point in talking. THAT is the "locus of disagreement," not a particular point that was held, but the motivations that caused one to hold the point. One reason that I find presuppositional apologetics loathsome is that it requires one to conclude on the very matter that discussion is supposed to illuminate before the discussion takes place.
That's what's been so disappointing. After that much time, I think there is just as much opacity about people's motivations, perhaps even more, than there ever was. I have never been able to glean an idea of why you and Daniel do what you do in the way you do. I have no idea of the personal "why." You can list reasons from now until the cows come home, but I have no idea why you find those reasons persuasive, what personally causes them to ring true.
And I think that this was the same problem that, e.g., William Tighe had with Todd. The exact thing that dialogue is supposed to clarify, namely "Why the hell are you doing that?," gets missed. At the root, that's what most of the accusations on Pontifications were about, inarticulate ways of saying "Why are you doing this?"
Daniel:
Perhaps that was as illuminating as anything I've ever heard as to exactly what I've been trying to get at. You said:
"In reverse Newman style, I always believed the papacy because I believed that what she taught to be the truth and not the other way around (not knowing Orthodoxy) regardless of what modern theology might have thought of that ordo. In other words, I followed the *person* of Augustine here (especially his thinking on the Unity of the Church) of whom I was influenced the most, rather than Newman's way."
Inveterate Westerner that I am, I put all the emphasis on social, legal, and economic dynamics. As a student of quantum mechanics, all I see is energy, interaction, and relation, that good old Heraclitean, evolutionary flux. That's where I found something I, as a physicist, can recognize in Western Christianity: the analogy between finite and infinite motion and the stability of infinite motion. If I have to make a choice between that and the East, then I have no choice, because my impulse toward Christianity is driven by the same things that drove my love of physics. I have a strong motivation to make the two compatible, because the West is in a perpetual struggle against nihilism (chaotic, pointless motion) that engenders considerable human misery when there isn't the corporate strength to fight it.
Nonetheless, after considering this subject in an introspective light, I realized that I might as well try to grow wings and fly as to try to pretend that I can accept God "beyond being" as an explanation. Michael L. came to the same conclusion, probably for the same reasons. It's great if it works for you, but as dogma, it's going to cut off a massive chunk of the population as hopelessly obstinate heretics, me included. If Christianity demands it, then I'm not a Christian, and I never have been nor will be.
That's the tough thing about framing this dialogue. For somebody like me, your argument is telling me not to believe in God anymore; if I accept it, I'm an atheist. That's why I think your argument, if you believe it, should be even more delicate in the question of understanding people's motivations, because you probably don't want to spring it on people like me if you don't want it to get nasty.
Long rant, but that's what a couple of years of spectation and participation has netted for me. Hope it's helpful.
I found it helpful. Thank you for it.
Jonathan,
I fully realize that St. Photios's doctrine of God is atheistic to the "Augustinian" triadology from the "Augustinian" perspective. That's why he assumes all the principles of dialectic and non-contradiction to turn it around on Charlegmagne and company in the Mystagogy, humanistic style, because that is their presuppositional starting points. This is why the principle is the same regardless if we are talking about Plotinus, Aquinas, Augustine, or Photios--dialectic is dialectic.
"I have never been able to glean an idea of why you and Daniel do what you do in the way you do. I have no idea of the personal "why."
We do what we do because we believe Western Christianity stands at the brink of nihilism in ship-wrecking itself or constantly unraveling itself Hegelian style. Only in returning to the that golden thread of patristic witness will it be saved, or perhaps survive superficially by reconciling all opposites under papal infallibility. There are two types of people in the early church: Hellenizers and Preservers (and/or Restorers!). Some were out right Hellenizers (Origen; and even worse Gnostic writers) and some had tendencies that way (St. Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria). Plus, we do what we do to evangelize and strengthen our brother Orthodox. We also want to clearly state what the real differenes are between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism.
"As a student of quantum mechanics, all I see is energy, interaction, and relation, that good old Heraclitean, evolutionary flux. That's where I found something I, as a physicist, can recognize in Western Christianity: the analogy between finite and infinite motion and the stability of infinite motion."
You and Farrell would have much to talk about, and you both would be in agreement here. Yet you both would draw different conclusions of what exactly are the benefits, especially if one doesn't understand the telos of that development. There is a common thread between physics and the filioque doctrine, and at that point he would tell you that natural theology is neither "natural" nor "theology." Real Theology is a whole other ball-game. So it doesn't surprise me in the least bit that you have those affinities between filioquism and physics, it's all part of the ingrained "Augustinianism" and impossible without it.
"If I have to make a choice between that and the East, then I have no choice, because my impulse toward Christianity is driven by the same things that drove my love of physics. I have a strong motivation to make the two compatible,"
I don't understand this part. If you have no choice, then why make them compatible. If our view is non-sense, then why would you want to make them compatible? Step into my shoes and answer that question: what do you think that is telling ME?
"because the West is in a perpetual struggle against nihilism (chaotic, pointless motion) that engenders considerable human misery when there isn't the corporate strength to fight it."
And this is where we can't go along with such a program, because the dialectic doesn't exist between East and West, but exists in the Western thinking that is producing the dialectic.
"For somebody like me, your argument is telling me not to believe in God anymore; if I accept it, I'm an atheist."
Is Christ your paradigm? Is He your presupposition to understand man and God? Or is it the first game in town to play "natural theology" for a little while and open up the door to Hume and others? If the person of Christ is not your starting point, are you a philosopher or a theologian? Or perhaps the Recapitulatory Economy of Christ is the only "True Philosophy," to steal from John Eriugena.
My point here is not formal argument, but perspective.
Photios
Jonathan,
One more thing:
My theological motivation in a lot of this is death. Just what is death? When I understood what death is/was, Maximian style, then I knew how to read many aspects of patristic texts that did not make sense and especially a prophetic text like the Mystagogy.
Photios
I've been watching this thread for awhile without commenting, because I felt like I probably couldn't really add anything. I did however go back and read the Pontifications thread where some of this got started, and I have to say three things: 1) Although I have a lot of respect for David Hart as a scholar and have read his works with profit, his response to Perry was anything but scholarly. It was uncharitable, condescending and snide, and it did, in fact, make him sound like a pompous ass. 2) It was Perry's opponents (although not the "Pontificator" himself) who began the ad hominems and uncharitableness, and refused to drop the attacks despite Perry's several requests to do so. 3) Perhaps most importantly, no one answered Perry's argument.
Several good questions there.
"This is why the principle is the same regardless if we are talking about Plotinus, Aquinas, Augustine, or Photios--dialectic is dialectic."
That's what I doubt. It hasn't remotely been my experience that all reasoning dealing with being is dialectic, particularly in terms of a clash of opposites. Nor do I think that LNC entails such a clash of opposites. For example, points can be true limits of series without actually being contained in them, thereby allowing sets to be meaningfully related to each other even if they don't contain one another. Differential calculus was pretty much the end of dialectical thinking in mathematics; quantum mechanics was its end in physics. I think you're right about the West being forced to deal with it, but I think it already did, and dialectic broke. If anything, I think it is the relic of dialectical thinking that causes the desire to put progress and purpose in the wrong place (Hegelianism, Darwinianism). And ultimately, the Catholic Church was the intellectual impetus that provided both the cultural context and the intellectual impetus that drove this recognition; when confronted with the threat of such dialecticism in its most concrete, the West answered. I'd point to the Crusades; the East just doesn't know how to deal with true nihilists, those who don't take reason and Greek metaphysics for granted. The West had to confront the fact that these fundamental tenets of the metaphysical framework were deniable and then had to construct a way to think meaningfully even without them.
"We do what we do because we believe Western Christianity stands at the brink of nihilism in ship-wrecking itself or constantly unraveling itself Hegelian style."
That would highlight a major difference between us. As I read history, Catholic Christianity has been the historical bulwark against nihilism and unreasoning destruction (see, e.g., Bernard's new knighthood). So when I see the attack of Augustinianism and filioquism, it looks to me like an attack on the only historical force that has provided a consistent defense against evil. I think Hegelianism and the like just results from the West losing its identity and cultural heritage.
"There are two types of people in the early church: Hellenizers and Preservers (and/or Restorers!)."
And I consider this an oversimplification. I think there are other ways of reasoning that Hellenistic dialectic. I think the West proves it, and I think that Justin Martyr, Clement, and Gregory Nyssen prove it as well.
"You and Farrell would have much to talk about, and you both would be in agreement here. Yet you both would draw different conclusions of what exactly are the benefits, especially if one doesn't understand the telos of that development. There is a common thread between physics and the filioque doctrine, and at that point he would tell you that natural theology is neither "natural" nor "theology." Real Theology is a whole other ball-game. So it doesn't surprise me in the least bit that you have those affinities between filioquism and physics, it's all part of the ingrained "Augustinianism" and impossible without it."
I consider Farrell "incompletely converted" with regard to modern physics. :-) I don't see how he could understand it and think as he does about Western reasoning. But this does highlight the problem: for me, modern physics just IS reality. That's my starting point.
"If you have no choice, then why make them compatible. If our view is non-sense, then why would you want to make them compatible? Step into my shoes and answer that question: what do you think that is telling ME?"
Oh, I meant more generally between East and West. Our particular views aren't reconcilable; in that respect, it's not really an option for me to accept or reconcile them. If I'm right, then you have to be wrong, or vice versa, simply based on the logical construction.
"Is Christ your paradigm? Is He your presupposition to understand man and God? Or is it the first game in town to play 'natural theology' for a little while and open up the door to Hume and others? If the person of Christ is not your starting point, are you a philosopher or a theologian? Or perhaps the Recapitulatory Economy of Christ is the only 'True Philosophy,' to steal from John Eriugena."
Ultimately, I think my point is that no matter where you start, it all ends up being consistent. Whether you start with the reality of experience and realize the limits of reason (the transcendental, phenomenological method) or whether you begin with the revealed experience of Christ and justify your inquiry that way, I believe that the answers must ultimately be the same. Indeed, if one can't work both ways, then I am suspicious of even the possibility that such an account is true. I suppose that's what I find most troubling.
"My theological motivation in a lot of this is death. Just what is death? When I understood what death is/was, Maximian style, then I knew how to read many aspects of patristic texts that did not make sense and especially a prophetic text like the Mystagogy."
I certainly agree with Maximus in identifying the self-destructive tendency in man being best exemplified in setting things in opposition to one another. On the other hand, I think that nature, and even natural death itself, is non-dialectic. That's almost the point; one can look at the extinction of dinosaurs and evolution, for example, in a non-dialectical fashion. Just as evolutionists don't have to be Darwinian, so mathematicians and physicists don't have to be dialectical. It's hard for me to speculate about what the Fathers might have thought about this, because I don't know that they ever really considered the possibility (Augustine just had the habit of brilliant and curious minds to poke at the questions that he knew were hard or impossible for him to answer, a habit that characterized the West's intellectual development). I guess I just don't find the authority of the Fathers all that helpful on this point because I don't think that they really thought about or spoke to the problem. Much of what the Fathers say is obsolete to me, while much of what the medievals say is quite relevant.
...modern physics just IS reality...
...I think that nature, and even natural death itself, is non-dialectic...
...Much of what the Fathers say is obsolete to me, while much of what the medievals say is quite relevant...
I have appreciated the discussion, but given the above, I think that there is little left to really debate. The gulf may simply be too wide.
I am intrigued by the fact that you write that natural death is non-dialectic. I have long suspected this to be the belief, or at least the intuition, of RCs, and I appreciate the forthright statement here. RC inclinations regarding what is natural in a post-lapsarian universe reveal one of the most telling of differences between the two theological visions presented here.
I am intrigued by the fact that you write that natural death is non-dialectic. I have long suspected this to be the belief, or at least the intuition, of RCs, and I appreciate the forthright statement here.
And I have long suspected that the opinion of many Orthodox Christians is that Catholics don't know what the Fathers say on this point rather than knowing and disagreeing about its significance. IOW, it's not that we don't know what they said. It's simply that we don't find their witness on the point binding (and sometimes, not even persuasive).
But yes, I agree: the idea that physical death is a fall into dialectic is pretty much a non-starter for me. Might be an instructive metaphor, but I doubt it can be taken all that literally, which may have been why I haven't ever been able to get on board with the whole idea that the Fathers taught it dogmatically.
"Death is non-dialectic"...
For those of us not quite so philosophically equipped, what does that mean?
In what ways might death be either dialectic or non-dialectic, in the Orthodox or Catholic understandings?
seraph,
I am certainly not the one most qualified to answer your question so consider this a layman's answer.
In the realm of thought there are different forms of dialectic. In browsing the web for a good summary I found this at Wikipedia which seems to be a decent outline of the subject:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic
My father was a communist for some time and I inherited from him a cursory knowledge of Marxist dialectics, which I imagine is where I first encountered the term. I went on to read a fair amount of Hegel. It was only after having read these that I came to Socratic dialectic. This appropriation of dialectic in reverse may not have been healthy for my own intellectual health.
If you have read Pontifications or Energies of the Trinity before, you will have noticed that Perry and Photius speak of the negative influence of the use of dialectic reasoning and argumentation. I very much hesitate to speak for them, but it seems to me that they reject the use of dialectic in theology in both the means of strict socratic method and the thesis-antithesis-synthesis general dialectic. One of the problems with dialectic reasoning is that it can be used to argue almost any end. When I first read Aquinas years ago I remember often thinking that he could just have easily used his method to argue a different end on a number of issues. In other words, the method gives its user a false confidence and calls true what is oftentimes merely clever.
That said, I have been talking about dialectic reasoning. When talking about the human experience of death I am perhaps speaking analogously. Orthodox believe that death is the contradiction of life. Death is not natural, God does not intend death for anyone. There is no order in death. There is no reasoning to death. In a certain sense, we Orthodox could think of death in this manner: those who choose death seek to create for themselves the dualism of death opposed to life. God answers and heals that false choice in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Thus, so to speak, we could think in terms of life (thesis), death (antithesis), resurrection (synthesis) -- BUT ONLY IN THE SENSE OF RECAPITULATION. By recapitulation I mean that our own resurrection is secured by the fact that Christ has taken our humanity and our death upon Himself, healing our humanness and conquering death. We are then to recapitulate the life of Christ. In the strictest of senses human life is not dialectic because our choosing of death was not necessary. But soteriologically speaking, it is only through Christ's death that we are raised from the dead. In other words, Christ's death was soteriologically necessary to resurrect us and therefore restore us to life. Thus I think we can refer to death as dialectic. This does not result in a necessary dualism with regard to our own nature because we freely chose death and because Christ freely chose to die.
In Roman Catholicism, it seems to me, the post-lapsarian cycles of nature are considered, well, natural and ordered. The post-lapsarian universe might be said to exist in a different "dispensation" in this line of thought. It is almost as if after the fall God deemed there to be a new natural order of the universe in which death plays an integral part. In the Western theological vision, I think one sees a natural progression on the part of the soul from life to death to afterlife, or life through death to afterlife. Death, in a certain sense, becomes beautiful and necessary to human nature; a necessary means of the human telos in and of itself. In this vision, Christ's death is the perfect death, the most beautiful of deaths. Hence the fascination with the technicalities and the particularities of the Passion. Orthodoxy is much more concerned with Christ's will than how many times He was whipped. In Orthodoxy thought, God does not establish a new order after the Fall. The chaos of the cosmos' current state is the expected result of the fact that the microcosm who was meant to name, sanctify, and guide the macrocosm (as prophet, priest, and king) has instead freely rejected the Creator of the macrocosm. One might be inclined to say that when mankind freely chose death, through the means of the fruit of the tree of "knowledge" of good and evil, man thereby condemned himself to the dialectic of death (which he often mimics in his dialectic means of reasoning), which is only undone in the process of theosis, which is the recapitulation of our lives into icons of the life of Christ (the true and perfect prophet, priest, and king), in whom the free choice of death is completely turned on its head. The God-Man Christ uses the free choice of death to completely conquer and heal the results of mankind's free choice of death. To say that I think that death is dialectic is not to say that I embrace dialectic means of understanding. Quite the contrary.
I welcome correction if I have gotten any of these points wrong.
I'm not sure I'm sufficiently philosophically equipped to say, but I gather that it means that biological processes of corruption are somehow "unnatural," so that biological death of human beings was the result of the fall, passed through natual inheritance.
I consider this unlikely. I think it is inherent in biological processes under certain conditions that organisms die, precisely because of the same operations that allow them to live. I don't think that death is inherited as a consequence of sin, but rather, vulnerability to death (and more importantly, the perception of vulnerability to death) is the situation into which Adam's sin places us. I think this view nicely harmonizes both the patristic interpretation of Rom. 5:12 (Because of death, all men sinned) with the Western interpretation (death spread to all men because all men sinned). I consider it both true that sin created the situation of vulnerability to death and that the situation of vulnerability to death produces concupiscence. Thus, it isn't the biological fact of dying but the awareness of its possibility and the consciousness of not being under God's protection from it that came into the world with the Fall.
Augustine takes from Origen an apt allegorical interpretation of the garments Adam and Eve used to cover themselves symbolizing this awareness of death and the turning toward earthly things instead of God for security against death. That seems to be closest to the truth for me. It's not that I don't consider the body to be part of human nature, but that human nature is about biography, not just a metaphysical composition of parts. The account of human nature must also take into account that we have a biography by nature, and that natural operations take place in the context of this biography, not standing somehow independent from it. Otherwise, every sort of privation in our natural capacity is evil, but it seems clear to me that only those sorts of privation that are actively self-destructive, refusals of our natural operation, qualify as evil. That's why original sin is only sin analogously, referring to a sort of privation that is not truly evil, but nonetheless a real privation.
Owen,
Beautifully put. You are an Orthodox after my own heart.
The only thing I could add to your post regarding dialectic and death is that God does actually use death to now serve a good purpose and that death is now to limit the amount of evil that we do BECAUSE of its existence and consequence, per Sts. Chrysostom and Photios: we completely fall *apart* so that we can't go about sinning anymore!
Photios
I second the positive assessment of Owen's exposition. We posted within minutes of each other, and I hadn't read it in my last response.
I think it gets right to the heart of the disagreement, and the real point of it is that we disagree on death being a contrary to life as if they are dialectically opposed forces. In the West, death is merely a stage of change in the mode of life, a condition of finitude, which isn't inherently destructive or evil. Thus, for John Chrysostom and Photius, death can only have a negative benefit by providing a terminus on the amount of self-destruction and other-destruction that we can work. In the Western view, death and suffering, being themselves neutral, can serve a positive purpose in a person's overall biography. This does not mean that we will them in themselves from our finite, timebound perspective (even Christ did not desire to die), but that we can have a perspective in which they serve their instrumental purpose. This is the Western theology of the felix culpa, not that Adam's sin was necessary for the good, but that in the contingent perspective, God turned the evil to a good toward that was entirely unintended. This does not mean that sin is intelligible ex ante, as if there were a true cause or reason for sin, but only that it can be justified ex post from God's infinite perspective (or our own retropective position) based on the person's entire life.
This does strikes me as the major philosophical difference. I admit that there is patristic witness for the idea of death as dialectic, essentially being the opposite of life, but I do not believe that any Christian dogma turns on it.
It seems there is agreement that humans chose death with its disorder. How does that (or does it?) jive with evolutionary therory which has "nature red in tooth and claw" and eons of violence and cruelty before Adam or any humans existed?
I believe cats for example eat their prey while the unfortunate victims are still living.
This has never struck me as fitting with the vision for creation of Isaiah 11...the wolf shall lie down with the lamb...they shall not hurt or destroy on all My holy mountain.
Romans 5 clearly says death came because of Adam's sin. That could of course be interpreted only "spiritually", yet Romans 8 just as clearly indicates that creation itself was handed over to bondage to death and decay because of our sin.
Are the eons of animal ferocity and death tied in retroactively with Adam's sin? Or with Lucifer's fall? Or is evolution incorrect in its interpretation of the data? What is Orthodox understanding of these realities?
I know this isn't directly on topic, but I'd love help with this question.
Jonathan,
Death is merely a stage of change in the mode of life? A condition of finitude? Isn't inherently destructive or evil?
This is Pelagianism. This isn't even an Augustinian thesis.
Besides Pelagius and maybe even Origen (heretics), show me one Orthodox Father who thinks as much.
Photios
Death is merely a stage of change in the mode of life? A condition of finitude? Isn't inherently destructive or evil?
Yup. You're evidently beginning to see my quandary.
This is Pelagianism. This isn't even an Augustinian thesis.
It's not Pelagianism, because I don't think that glorification is a debt owed to nature. We're allotted a finite span of biological existence, and God could just as easily allow that span to expire without either damning or glorifying people (more or less, this was the idea behind Limbo), holding them in suspension for as long as He likes. Alternatively, He could miraculously (preternaturally) sustain those same biological processes or contingently prevent events occurring that would interrupt them, or do whatever He likes contingently. I rather doubt that this would ever happen, but there's nothing in the state itself that troubles me. Regardless, it's purely hypothetical, as we also have to deal with the contingent fact that this isn't what happened.
I think it is generally "Augustinian" in tenor, in that Augustine's view of providence would also note that God knew that Adam would fall or not within the lifespan allowed to him, making the whole question of whether he would or wouldn't have biologically expired moot. This idea of taking the comprehensive view of a person's entire existence, seeing the role of death and evil in terms of a larger picture, strikes me as Augustinian as well.
Besides Pelagius and maybe even Origen (heretics), show me one Orthodox Father who thinks as much.
I don't think they knew as much about biological processes as I do, so I wouldn't expect them to know one way or the other. I also don't think they escaped dialectic in their thinking about creation even if they did have safeguards in place vis-a-vis God. Thinking of death as the dialectic opposite of life, just as cold is the dialectic opposite of heat, must have come quite naturally, but that doesn't make it right. I allow for the limits of people's understanding. Problems really aren't timeless, even though, as I pointed out earlier, "there is nothing new under the sun." The problems change, but the human dynamic in responding to them changes not at all.
Jonathan,
To be quite frank, I don’t think that either Michael studied the issue in depth. Michael did from Thomas’ perspective but not in so far as it was the locus of the disagreement between east and west in terms of the matter of theology proper. They neither of them had done, which explains well their astonishment and even outright denial that that was the locus of disagreement. It wasn’t until they had looked at representative Orthodox works in conjunction with the arguments I made that they finally came around to the conclusion that this was a sticking point. The same can be said for Martin or Blosser. Blosser never even got that far in his understanding but just rehearsed the textbook answers that any twit with a mouse could have found from the Summa Theologica.
I am critical of Orthodoxy, but I also happen to think it is right. Second, the debate shifted from my claim that, even if Orthodoxy is wrong, this is the center of the debate, to is Orthodoxy wrong? I was at least right about the first claim and I have always been open to being shown wrong on the second. The massive amounts of Platonism thrown at me in response hasn’t convinced me that I am.
My motivation was legion. I wanted to advance the discussion beyond thinking of conversion in the following ways. If you become Catholic, its because you care about authority, and if you’re Orthodox its because you have better liturgical taste. I think I accomplished that goal. Second, I wanted to take some of my ideas out for a test drive to see what kind of reaction I would get, which is why I generally don’t spend my time in Orthodox venues. Third, I wanted to evangelize people, Protestants as well as Catholics. Certainly my motivation isn’t any different from anyone else there on that point.
The audience in question wasn’t reading Burrell, Rocca, et al, with the exception of you, and that not until significantly later. I can’t think of anyone in that venue that thought of the differences in the way that I stated or even were very familiar with theology proper in the sense that they recognized it to be the locus of difference. I don’t even think that Kimel, let alone most people, Michael L excepting, even knew what the doctrine of divine simplicity was, until I brought it up. They surely weren’t familiar with Maximus.
I don’t think I bore the burden of informing Catholics on that blog, let alone anywhere else, of all of the intelligent ways to render Catholic teaching. I bore the burden to be fair and to represent the views correctly and to point to literature from a Catholic perspective where someone could explore the issues. Disagree if you like, but I think I bore that burden. So the “owner” of the blog didn’t ever ask me about them, or at least not that I recall. And if he did, I seriously doubt I just ignored the question.
I got the hostile reaction for a number of reasons. First because Catholics there suffered from the false belief that the Orthodox and Catholics have the same theology, except for a few minor points. I disabused them of that belief. They held to that belief out of ignorance which was motivated by a strong and habituated desire of seeing themselves as the ancient church. If there are significant differences between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, that belief is seriously undermined. Someone has not preserved the tradition. Others thought, also due to ignorance, that I was some wacked out reactionary Romaphobe and that my views weren’t representative. Diane Kramer suffered from this delusion for a long time, until she kept finding my views proffered by major Orthodox theological sources. People got mad on the whole because I knocked over their tinker toy structure of belief.
I can’t think of any particular *issue* that Catholics or Protestants proffered that I did not take seriously. There certainly were proposed solutions, authors and books that I dismissed, but I also gave reasons why I did so, usually in the form of, this is why this isn’t going to help. I had been there, done that, in my search as a Latin Christian to find answers already and judged the proposals to be inadequate. The fact that people kept giving me textbook answers brought to light that they were still in reactionary mode, rather than engaging the ideas and arguments that I put forward. They assumed that I had not done the requisite work of looking before making my claims. That is, they were implicitly, if not explicitly accusing me of intellectual vice.
In the various entries, I believe I often gave the philosophical reasons why Catholics held this or that view and didn’t just point my finger to where the divide was. And even if you are correct, it is certainly less true o me, than it was of my interlocutors. They were too busy telling me I was stupid, romaphobic, unread, unlearned, unrepresentative and a whole host of ad hominems. Why? Because they were reacting out of their commitment which is why they were required to dismiss me before they had even engaged the argument and any dialog had taken place. Why the hell were they doing that when I was asking at the very least, important questions?
If your love of Christianity is driven by the same thing that drove your love of physics, thenobviously there has to be some commonality and hence God is being. Theology has now fallen under the domain of reason, in which case the motion of reason, dialectic, will be the appropriate tool to gloss theology, for theology too must be a science. In this way, religion is completely natural. It is no wonder then that the resultant views on death, Daniel smells Pelagian blood in the water. It should be quite obvious then why the West is in a struggle with Nihilism, for Nihilism is just the even horizon of being. Nihilism is the opposite end of the Divided Line and the Allegory of the Cave and as such is the necessary partner to Catholicism, as the high end with the interchangeable Transcendentals of the Good, the True, Being and the Beautiful. You can’t complain about the evil of matter, when the One causes it by its emanative activity. Nihilism is recognition that dialectic is a routine, a practice, it is the effect which lacks any causal power because it comes at the end of the cascading of causal efficacy. Reason then has a limit at both ends, both in terms of the Good as being and at the low end where dialectic is a mere practice. I am unclear then why you would complain about the same essential thing (PUN!) at one end but not the other.
God as beyond activity/energy/esse/being will to be sure cut off the sciences from grasping deity, and this was Barlaam’s as well as Aquinas and Scotus’ worry, which is why they have to reject the preceding tradition of the Fathers and take the “Schoolmen” as an advance over them. It will imply that people who apply dialectic to theology are in some sense heterodox, that is also true, but it secures the place of the simple person at the altar rail (or Iconostasis) for theosis doesn’t require one to be a philosopher, mathematician, or biologist. The main folk that it does cut off as heretics are the Gnostics, for they were devotees of Dialectic par excellance, which is why they had rotating ministers, female ministers, redefined theological terms and reduced the divine Trinity to a set of rational and hence opposed relationships, and Jesus as the divine way shower. What else do you take this re-defining of the Trinity and women’s ordination to be other than Gnosticism? If the Trinity is a set of relations, does it matter what you call it? Mother, Child, and Womb picks out the relation just as well as Rock, Paper and Scissors or the One, Nous and Soul. It is just a hop and a skip from there to seeing humans as embodying this dialectic as soul, mind and body making humans causally attenuated, but no less deities in terms of divine sparks and then from there to history and social political philosophy. God as beyond being cuts off any hope of Gnosticism at the root, which is why St. Ireneaus complained so much about thinking of god as being and the employment of dialectic in theology.
My arguments is not telling you not to believe in God, just not idolatry, that is thinking of God as the sum of nature. This is why the orthodox view cuts off the project of natural theology and re-centers it on Christ. If you accept the argument, then you worship that which you do not know, the God of Paul, the unknown God.
Jonathan,
Plato, is quite clear that the Divided Line displays how being can be limited without including either absolute being or non-being on it. Consequently, dialectic points to the limits, without including them, which is why the Good is hyper ousia and why matter is nothing at all. Conseuquently, I think the only way the west “broke” Dialectic, was in so far as they saw its limitations, not that their thinking isn’t dialectical.
I’d argue that the East does know how to deal with true Nihilists-repentence. And this is because Greek Metaphysics, dialectic, does not form our theology, for theology is non-dialectical. If it were, we’d all be subordinationalistic monothelite predestinarians. If anything the Latins have taken Nihilism into their bosom and tried to tame it but stuffing it as the content of their theology (cue Tillich for example). All they know how to do is assimilate, but their sickness is in large measure due to their nature as assimilators and now to something they assimilated. Is it any wonder why you get nutty things like Chardin or Liberation Theology in Catholicism and Protestantism? They can’t help it-they’re sick. Going and deliberately infecting yourself isn’t a cure for the sickness, it’s a testament to already being sick, for which the only cure is repentence. This is why Catholicism and Protestantism are looking for new sources to apply dialectic, because they have gotten bored with the ones that they created for themselves, specifically their Whiggish fictional histories. Is it any wonder why Catholic and Protestant Ministers need to go to college?
Catholicism has been the bulwark against certain employments of the dialectic, but not of the underlying nihilism of dialectic per se. Nihilism is the bastard child of Catholicism, long in coming. It is the Gnostic budding of new relations, uncontrolled by its source (the Pope, which is why he can't stop the dialectic, but only create more schisms in condeming various dialectical outcomes or developments) and this is why the circle best represented dialectic for the Platonists and especially the Gnostics, with their circular self consuming sperent. This is why Catholics and Protestants were all over Hegelianism, for Hegelian dialectic is just Plotinus speaking German. What the hell is Geist other than the hypostasis of Psuche for crying out loud?! Hegelianism is thus very much in line with culture of Greece and Nietzsche saw this clearly.
And more specifically, Maximus’s dyothelitism makes it clear that Dialecic will lead you to Christological heresy. If the two natures of Christ are distinguished in terms of opposition, Christ will be a sinner or one will be subordinated to another or assimilated to the Father. This is why Justin ends up with the subordination that he does and the same for Clement, and why Gregory ends up with the kind of universalism that he does for the only third option available is assimilation to the one, the negation of dialectic and hence of distinction.
If modern physics is reality, then God will be not real or he will be the subject of physics. How is that Christianity? And denoting your starting point in no way justifies it.
If our views aren’t reconcilable, then this is certainly an advance on your older position and that of many people on Pontifications, namely that the two churches teach the same thing. In which case, I was right about that as well. From this it follows that either the ecumenical endeavors of Rome are either done in ignorance or are an attempt to get the East to abandon its position, which is what the East has said all along.
As for evolution, putting its truth value aside, evolution is Hegelian dialectic applied to biology, as many of Darwin’s contemporaries noted. Natural selection is dialectical, which is why some pre-socratics and Plotinus came up with similar ideas. Augustine thinks that the habit of brilliant minds to ask questions that they could not answer was a manifestation of Original sin-vain curiosity, and so I agree that it was a habit that characterized the West’s intellectual development, that is, sickness.
From my view, the fact that you don’t take the Fathers on death seriously just highlights the common commitment to dialectic between Protestants and Catholics, which is why I suppose I find your comments to be very Protestant. If one is committed to dialectic, tradition becomes an empty word. I can’t help but wonder what you do with Romans 8. Are we to “develop” and advance beyond the Revelation given to Saint Paul? “Now see, what this *really means* is…” cue Platonic/Gnostic rules of allegorical re-interpretation.
As for the “patristic interpretation” of Romans 5:12, I think you mean the Augustinian interpretation, don’t you? If human nature is about biography, then how is this not just a shift from one end of the dialectical spectrum to the other, seeing humanity in terms of persons as opposed to nature? If death is not inherited but the circumstantial vulnerability to die is a consequence of sin, then how is it not the case that nature is sufficient unto itself? How is it that the logos of humanity is a logos of God? If its not, how on earth could dialectic ever be appropriate for doing theology?
I am sorry but I can’t help but see how you have not just made it necessary to think of human nature apart from personhood or biography, that is that human nature is independent of us as persons, since death is natural to us, regardless of personal actions. And I don’t think it follows that every privation would be evil, just every privation relative to our human logos would be so. Just because I lack wings doesn’t make me evil. In your account, I can’t help but see the old Manichean and Platonic worry about the unstableness and inherent impermanence of matter as the source of death and sin.
I think it gets right to the heart of the disagreement, and the real point of it is that we disagree on death being a contrary to life as if they are dialectically opposed forces. In the West, death is merely a stage of change in the mode of life, a condition of finitude, which isn't inherently destructive or evil. Thus, for John Chrysostom and Photius, death can only have a negative benefit by providing a terminus on the amount of self-destruction and other-destruction that we can work.
The Western view can take death as neutral because it takes God to be being and dialectic as the universal method for understanding things. Just is just part of the natural world, as is life. Theosis then will be becoming “alive” to the highest degree possible for creatures, which is why it is necessarily glossed in exclusively causal terms.
You are right though that the East does not have a doctrine of felix culpa for those reasons. Death has no purpose. There is no point to death, which is why we fear it so and why we never get used to it. If death had a teleology, then evil would be explainable. That is, there is a reason why evil occurs, but evil itself has no reason, which is why there can be no justification for evil. That is, we can do good in response to evil, but evil itself has no reason, evil explains nothing at all. Your view that death/sin can only be justified from God’s perspective, but what is this but the Platonic and Hegelian dialectical view that every past evil is a justified good?
Jonathan,
I'm not saying you're view is Pelagian because you think glorification is gratuitous, but because you think death is a part of being a creature. There is more to Pelagian anthropology than just the metaphysics of grace. Look at the canons of Carthage and Augustine's letters to the bishop of Rome Innocent regarding Caelestius and Augustine's work "Perfection of Human Righteousness."
Photios
Photios, Crimson Catholic, and Acolyte, and Ochlophobist, how do you treat evolutionary theory's eons of death before Adam? I think this may be relevant.
Perry: "It should be quite obvious then why the West is in a struggle with Nihilism, for Nihilism is just the even horizon of being."
For me, this is not a trivial or merely intellectual issue. On it depends everything from getting up from bed every morning to the fate of modern civilization.
As far as I can tell, Perry's claim that all forms of Catholic theology are just as helpless against nihilism as any philosophy (Far East or West) is right on target. (I still wonder whether it all hinges on dialectic as he claims.) A few secular thinkers realize this and are disturbed by the way reason ends up consuming itself and leaving us with nothing. See for example "Feynman's Unanswered Question" (http://www.puaf.umd.edu/IPPP/reports/vol26winterspring06/vol26winterspring06.pdf). Personally, as an atheist at one point in my life, I drove myself into deep despair trying to find a philosophical key to to the problem of nihilism.
So I'm stunned by some of the statements Jonathan has made. If he's right, then I have been completely misreading all this for years. My suspicion, however, is that I will end up on the Dark Side. ;)
Seraph,
I don't engage them on their ground, but treat the thinking as I do other non-believing and other gnostic theories: I convert them to Christ and His recapitulatory economy and that thinking. I take the scriptural and liturgical tradition of the Church as primary over any philosophical reasoning or science.
Photios
Dear Photios,
Would that imply that you would question the accuracy of evolutionary theory? (For the record, I do also.) Do most Orthodox agree with that assessment?
Seraph,
I deny it altogether. I think it'll go down the same toilet bowl as many other ideas of science that advance funeral by funeral. Do most Orthodox agree with that assessment? I don't know. I haven't spent a lot of time in thinking about other Orthodox theologians on the question of evolution.
Photios
Photius,
I'm curious: What exactly do you deny? Change in species/genus/etc. over time? Neodarwinism? A 4 billion year-old planet?
Thanks.
Well, I can't see any more use in going over the Pontifications motivations, at least since I find the stated motivations (and even the analysis of other people's motivations) all the more obscure after Perry's post. Maybe I'm just not the same sort of person as Perry or Owen or Daniel (and I don't say that pejoratively in either direction; I'm simply expressing that I have no empathy for what motivates you, and I don't see my concerns resonating at all).
So perhaps I can turn to discussing the two issues (although somewhat related) that seem to have emerged to be of interest: (1) whether the mode of reason is inherently dialectic, and (2) whether dissociation of the body and soul takes place inevitably through biological processes (even without sin) absent miraculous intervention.
Ad 1, this is precisely where I have doubt. I do not think that reason is dialectic simply because it happens to be bound by the law of non-contradiction, because I do not think that either reality or being are dialectic. I think the allegory of the Divided Line is built on a fundamental misunderstanding of infinity, the same one that drove Zeno's paradox. It was only Christian theologians, forced to deal with the question of how the infinite and finite were reconcilable, who got around the problem. I think it becomes most clear when you look at how Aristotle viewed the line as infinitely divisible but never infinitely divided. He's still thinking of the reason as an instrument that cuts things according to non-contradiction (this and not that), but he never actually gets to the point of WHY the line itself is more fundamental than the point, and how it is that one can reason non-dialectically on that very issue. It's a primitive view of relations, entirely understandable based on the Greek mathematics, but entirely untenable for quantitative science based entirely on relations. The Divided Line is built on this analogy of slicing and unsliced, and that is the fundamental error in that it isn't the way that reason operates.
I think the problem in 2 is built on the same difficulty. Being is dialectic, so it must be describable in dialectic terms (to put it another way, all phenomena are dialectic). It's homeostasis taken to the extreme, so that everything in all of existence is homeostatic. But when you have something like statistical mechanics that renders all of the opposing powers in Greek metaphysics relative (there is no such thing as "cold" or "dry," for example), then much of what was taken for granted in the Greek power description from Galen becomes obsolete. But IMHO, Latin philosophy was not nearly so dependent on these concepts, having been drawn to a different set of experiences (and particularly, to legal/social examples that provided useful cases that were not easily parsed into dialectical categories). So yes, even Augustine probably did not think of death as part of being a creature on account of his philosophical milieu, but on the other hand, I think his analysis of humanity in terms of an entire life, viewed as a whole, would have lent itself to this sort of analysis. I would cite the Augustinian Ratzinger and his treatment of original sin as an example of how Augustinian thinking might be so adapted.
That's why I think that the diagnosis of nihilism (and Western metaphysics) being provided above doesn't work. One can look at nihilism as dialectic gone to seed, the extreme end of Plato's divisibility resulting from overconfidence in the dialectic method of reason. But I would view that as misplaced. On the contrary, I would say that current Western nihilism is quite the opposite; it is rage against reason for failing to be able to provide any answer that is not relative, that can justify their power over others. There are certainly the naive rationalists (Hegelians, Marxists, Whigs, and the like) who are simply oblivious to the end of a self-destructive dialectic, placing blind faith in dialectical methods of reason, but those are increasingly becomes fossils of a particularly short-sighted view of human history. But that is not where we are today.
The Fathers managed to circumvent the problem because they lived in a culture where the dialectic of reason was simply taken for granted, meaning that what they were proposing regarding apophaticism could be understood (even if that solution was obliviously overlooked by the Scottish Enlightenment and the Hegelian philosophers). But now we are dealing with people who know the limits of reason with more excruciating exactitude than the Greeks ever did, and their solution will never be adequate. The current nihilists aren't people who want to continue reasoning, oblivious of its limits. They are people who hate to reason, because they know exactly what its limits are, and yet they can do nothing else, because it is all they have. They are married to a partner they loathe.
I don't think that Catholicism has solved this problem, but I do believe it is the only Christian faith that shows any signs of actually responding to it in any meaningful way.
And BTW, Anthony, as a physicist and a lawyer, the names mentioned in your article were intimately familiar to me; Feynman and Sagan were enormously influential for my fellow physics students, and Gould was my own professor. I have seen the disease as close up as anyone, talked from dusk 'til dawn with people who lived it every day. If you are "stunned," I think it is only because you didn't plumb the depths of the despair that you appear to have encountered. To speak of driving yourself to despair suggests that it was something that could have been avoided (and perhaps pacified by simply not thinking about those things or finding some satisfactory answer that excused not thinking). But these people are driven to seek those answers, and their despair is inevitable unless they can be led to understand that their reason has actually given them answers. Refusing to deal with them on their ground is simply refusing to deal with them at all.
These are the people who concern me, because in the end, I am one of them. Regardless of the consequences for society as a whole (and I believe this is a serious problem), my concern is for them as fellow-sufferers. I think that much of the "I've been there" rhetoric is far too hasty, because the fundamental lack of understanding from my perspective convinced me that people really haven't. As an example, I would have been constitutionally incapable of accepting Reformed theology well before my conversion, and what I have read from even the smarter writers among Reformed theology leads me to believe that no one taking that path could have started from the point that I am describing, because that theology of revelation and covenant would have been completely incompatible with the fundamental dynamic of their nihilism.
Anyway, I think Anthony's insight on the problem is good. We're coming at this from completely different angles. The difference is that I think the problem I'm describing doesn't result from being Western; it's just that the Western way of approaching the world has made it unavoidable in a way that it was not in earlier times. It's not a question of attempting to transgress the boundaries of reason, but rather, an acute awareness of exactly where those boundaries are.
Jonathan,
I will pass over the comments about dialectic since that's not where my concern lies -- in fact it probably goes right over my head.
Regarding driving myself to despair, well, constitutionally speaking I tend to go to extremes with such things, but when I can have a conversation with an atheist who is completely oblivious to the destructive implications of his beliefs, I would rather be in philosophical despair than happily unaware that I'm fooling myself. Those reading this who admire Paul Kurtz and "secular humanism," please raise your hands.
You say: "I don't think that Catholicism has solved this problem, but I do believe it is the only Christian faith that shows any signs of actually responding to it in any meaningful way."
But for me nihilism is like Medusa -- it turns any response that comes into contact with it into stone.
Reading some of your blog entries on Zubiri only highlight the problem for me. I too have an abiding interest, though not expertise, in science, but I have never found a compelling reason to say that reality goes any higher than quarks, or strings, as the case may be, when we take physics as the bedrock of reality. If I really thought quantum physics (or string theory) "just IS reality," I would probably be a mereological nihilist, and if persons "just ARE physics," then there really are no persons, and the hypostatic union was a bust.
From reading your interactions with Perry and Photios and some of what you've written on your blog, it looks to me like you are saying substantially the same thing as they are, or at least you're much closer than the other Catholics they've interacted with. The question for me is: Does Zubiri's phenomenological reading of physics really help you do that, or is it rather a very interesting model posed after the act of faith?
To put it another way, you can't smuggle in your metaphysics before faith. Realist metaphysics can always be denied, and recent trends, even in "analytic" philosophy, suggest that its deniers can do so even at the cost of absurdity. So without the act of faith (Perry spoke of repentance above), nihilism still rules the day.
Finding a way to make the Gospel and the newest and best physics compatible is fine as far as it goes, but I don't see how it is even the beginning of a response to someone trained in physics who says: "Well, I simply deny anything exists other than quarks."
I am not sure if the way Eastern theologians have responded to this fact is always conducive for developing "wisdom of this world," but, unless I am completely misreading this, it is basically correct.
If I have misunderstood what you're saying, please forgive me. Your statement that Catholicism has not solved the "problem of reason" leaves me less stunned than before, but for me that's not the end of the story.
That last part should read "please correct me."
I too have an abiding interest, though not expertise, in science, but I have never found a compelling reason to say that reality goes any higher than quarks, or strings, as the case may be, when we take physics as the bedrock of reality. If I really thought quantum physics (or string theory) "just IS reality," I would probably be a mereological nihilist, and if persons "just ARE physics," then there really are no persons, and the hypostatic union was a bust.
I might not have conveyed my intent accordingly; I am not saying that physics is an exclusive description of reality, only that it describes the object of its description entirely accurately. In other words, I presume that in numerous scientific areas, we have reached a description that perfectly corresponds to the phenomena they describe. Maxwell's equations, for example, are just true. They're never going to be revised, and the theoretical possibility of revisions is more or less irrelevant. I think a similar argument can be made for several other areas that they are just true at this point. You can't really ever reach that point with language/concept on account of intersubjectivity, but it is possible in observation of physical phenomena. That is one thing that distinguishes mathematical formalism from linguistic formalism; it is possible to simply be right, to express the entirety of the relationship you are attempting to describe in the way that you are attempting to describe it. I recognize the possibility of mereological nihilism here, which is the apparent recognition that what you know ultimately defeats your basis for knowing it, but that is simply not having a good grasp on how exactly you are describing the objection and what the limits of that description are.
You raised the key question here:
Does Zubiri's phenomenological reading of physics really help you do that, or is it rather a very interesting model posed after the act of faith?
...
Finding a way to make the Gospel and the newest and best physics compatible is fine as far as it goes, but I don't see how it is even the beginning of a response to someone trained in physics who says: "Well, I simply deny anything exists other than quarks."
The real purpose of any of these phenomenological versions of transcendental arguments (whether it's Blondel, Zubiri, Marion, or, to some extent, Lonergan) is two-fold. The first purpose is to demonstrate the finitude of human experience. The second purpose is to display that even though it is finite, it is the only way through which anything transcendent could ever possibly be known. The purpose isn't to forestall skepticism by the strength of argument but to rekindle the hope that there is something to be found. The entire trick of the argument is to suspend judgment on what can't be found out merely because you haven't found it yet. You can't claim based on what you've observed that you have a reason to think that there is nothing to be found, and moreover, you have a reason to think that if anything is going to be found, then it will ultimately come through supernatural intervention in harmony with reason. It prevents the condition of not yet having encountered the supernatural from leading to a binding judgment against it. The argument takes the stand that one ought to, and indeed must, continue developing the "wisdom of the world," because it is only through such wisdom that then knowledge of heavenly things will ever come. Thus, every new bit of truth that we discover ultimately becomes yet another avenue for divine truth. More or less, it rejects the idea of a modal dialectic, as if there are any aspects of human experience that are not proper methods of knowing God, whether reason, experience, or the like.
Jonathan,
Thanks for your reply. I found especially interesting your comment:
The second purpose is to display that even though it is finite, it is the only way through which anything transcendent could ever possibly be known.
This is a view I held at one time in a pretty strong form. Now I am not so sure because I wonder how it is compatible with either the beatific vision or theosis.
Regarding the New Physics and the phenomenological arguments, I will bow to your greater knowledge, though I have some lingering objections... which, however, have even less to do with the alleged topic of his post.
Now I am not so sure because I wonder how it is compatible with either the beatific vision or theosis.
And that acute summary of the difference is probably the perfect place to wrap up (particularly since I'm leaving town). Western theology appears to be built on this idea; indeed, I'm not even sure how the beatific vision can be rendered coherently if it isn't true (since the beatific vision is still an intellectual vision, albeit in an entirely different mode). I think it is not necessarily incompatible with theosis, simply that the Western conceptual understanding was never even considered (my reading of "A Dialogue between an Orthodox and a Barlaamite" certainly doesn't convince me that Gregory Palamas had the Western view on his radar in any respect).
Jonathan,
Just to clarify what I was saying: I'm not sure how the claim about finitude is compatible with the beatific vision, and I'm also not sure how the same claim is compatible with theosis, but I wasn't addressing whether they're compatible with each other (which is a related problem, true).
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home