things may get worse before they get better....
This was brought to my attention during Great Lent. From here:
Nearly identical in tone and spirit [to a statement made by an Armenian bishop], and lack of any clear, prophetic teaching are statements made by His Holiness, Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople when he visited San Francisco in 1990 as the metropolitan of Chalcedon as part of the entourage of the then Patriarch Dimitrios of blessed memory. The San Francisco Chronicle recorded this exchange -
Asked the Orthodox Church’s position on abortion, Bartholomew described a stand more liberal than that of the Roman Catholic Church. “Although the Orthodox Church believes the soul enters the body at conception and, generally speaking, respects human life and the continuation of the pregnancy,” Barthlomew said, the church also “respects the liberty and freedom of all human persons and all Christian couples. . . .We are not allowed to enter the bedrooms of the Christian couples,” he also said. “We cannot generalize. There are many reasons for a couple to go toward abortion.” (San Francisco Chronicle-7/20/90 p.A22)
We cannot generalize. Has he read his own work on ecology? I pray that this is a case where the journalist was too forward in his quotations, but given the current EP's fondness for granting Church awards to pro-death Greek politicians, I have reason to believe that the above does reflect his actual view. Then again, the above is so, well, generalized, that one cannot grasp a coherent view in the EP's response.
Κύριε ελέησον.
Nearly identical in tone and spirit [to a statement made by an Armenian bishop], and lack of any clear, prophetic teaching are statements made by His Holiness, Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople when he visited San Francisco in 1990 as the metropolitan of Chalcedon as part of the entourage of the then Patriarch Dimitrios of blessed memory. The San Francisco Chronicle recorded this exchange -
Asked the Orthodox Church’s position on abortion, Bartholomew described a stand more liberal than that of the Roman Catholic Church. “Although the Orthodox Church believes the soul enters the body at conception and, generally speaking, respects human life and the continuation of the pregnancy,” Barthlomew said, the church also “respects the liberty and freedom of all human persons and all Christian couples. . . .We are not allowed to enter the bedrooms of the Christian couples,” he also said. “We cannot generalize. There are many reasons for a couple to go toward abortion.” (San Francisco Chronicle-7/20/90 p.A22)
We cannot generalize. Has he read his own work on ecology? I pray that this is a case where the journalist was too forward in his quotations, but given the current EP's fondness for granting Church awards to pro-death Greek politicians, I have reason to believe that the above does reflect his actual view. Then again, the above is so, well, generalized, that one cannot grasp a coherent view in the EP's response.
Κύριε ελέησον.
posted by The Ochlophobist at 7:24 PM
33 Comments:
Several months ago in a debate that was NOT happening, a Greek Orthodox interlocutor of mine whom I rather respect said rather spontaneously something to the affect (understand birth control was not being talked about) "Unlike Catholics, we keep our bishops out of the bedroom and birth control is up to us" (A difference without distinction made was abortifacients... If you want to make an argument for barrier method, we can start to chat... She wasn't one way or another)
At any rate my mental response was roughly the same then as it is now. Firstly it isn't a matter of my hierarch watching what I do in bed. (As a single man, he would get bored anyway, that is just where I sleep, occasionally a couple of dogs find their way to the foot of the bed...) but mostly...
If God has dominion, He has dominion. If they are unconcerned about what the married do in their bedroom (can they do anything?)... the question comes up, why don't "the bishops" get the hell off my dinner table, out of my wallet, and stay unconcerned with where I spend my free time or (in the case of his All Holiness) where I leave my carbon footprint?
Efforts at accomadation are just a window of opportunity for attrition. I hope that he can take a good long look at the Protestant communities... and the secular post-Christian culture througout Europe. The abortion and church attendence rates being what they are in Greece, Italy, France and Russia... Well why not go all the way? Don't try to make friends with people that don't respect you to begin with, stand up in the marketplace of ideas - no matter how unpopular - and be a voice for the souls created who cannot defend themselves.
If this really is an "open question" strap yourself in - it is going to be a bumpy and fast ride down.
You'll probably be less-than-thrilled to know that the EP will be featured in Time Magazine's May 8 issue as one of the most infuential people in the world. What's an even bigger kicker is that Rowan Williams allegedly penned the piece on him, lauding him for his making environmentalism a spiritual issue.
This demonstrates the necessity of the Holy See and the Successor of Peter.
This pro-abortion Patriarch of Death is a schismatic heretic promoting abortion and birth control.
Perhaps the Patriarch has more sense than some think.
I find it somewhat ironic that some who decry the emphasis on legalistis juridicial theology are upset by an approach that does not follow that theology.
This demonstrates the necessity of the Holy See and the Successor of Peter.
The evangelicals are anti-abortion. I guess that makes them necessary, too.
Patriarch of Death
Clever
Anon's on the right track. A pastoral approach never sits well with formula seekers.
Mr. fisher,
As an Orthodox Christian I know that abortion is murder, is canonically forbidden, and is a grave evil. Some Orthodox bishops are deluded.
Under the Holy See there are bishops which dissent from the Holy See on moral matters, particularly with regard to contraception. Having a Holy See does not, quite obviously, prevent some bishops from teaching error. It does provide RC faithful with a locus of "truth," and it is "truth" that you and I disagree regarding. You will continue to hold that Orthodox have no means of finding a final determination of truth as they have no Holy See, but as one who have lived as a RC, I know better than to think that any problems to be found within Orthodoxy with regard to the "finding of the real truth" are not to be found in the RCC. This "Orthodoxy can make no final determination of truth on moral matters" is hogwash, and a laughable polemic coming from an RC, given the fact that the predominant culture, both clerical and lay culture, in the RCC is one which ignores or mitigates away the "true truth" which your mechanism of the Holy See provides you. Before I became a RC, I had several RC priests and tell me it was fine to take communion in a RC church. A non-Catholic friend of mine (who was ECUSA) had a RC bishop tell him this. When I protested, theologically coherent (however erroneous they may have been) arguments were presented to me as to why it was acceptable that I receive. Who should I have believed taught the real Catholicism? The neo-Caths, the trads, the liberals, the so-called moderates? To find one's way within the RCC one has to turn to a "real tradition" within the Tradition, which is substantially no different than what you accuse us Orthodox of. Where is the real Catholicism? Yes, those who are "faithful to the Magisterium" have their arguments, but so do the other camps. Having a Holy See does not stop the existence of camps within the RCC, indeed the RCC has more clearly definable and ideologically contradictory camps within it than does the EOC, one might just as well make the argument that the existence of the Holy See makes for more ideologically separate camps within the RCC.
You believe that you can truly know the truth because you have the Holy See. I believe that I can truly know the truth on matters of faith and morals because on these matters the Orthodox Church teaches plainly and clearly in her canons and her liturgies.
Anon,
"legalisti[c] juridi[cal] theology" is a general term. I have used it in the past, when speaking of general trends. But here to correspond to the EP's gross lack of faithful moral teaching one must be more precise.
The conclusion you draw is a red herring. I am not upset with the conclusions the EP appears to have once drawn because they do not follow from the terms used various dialectical late Medieval scholastic moral theologies. One does not need such theological methods in order to determine and teach that the Church unequivocally views abortion as murder and a grave evil. Plenty of the Fathers who had no intellectual connection whatsoever to such theologies taught as much without recourse to such theologies. My thoughts with regard to such things as legalistic juridical theology are neither here nor there with regard to the EPs apparent error with regard to the Church's teaching on abortion. There is no necessary relationship between such theologies which I might categorize as legalistic and juridical and the teaching of the truth regarding abortion.
Surely you might admit that it is possible to hold at the same time that (1) there are indeed theologies which are wrongly legalistic and/or wrongly juridical, and (2) that antinomianism is an error? Or do you actually believe that only theologies which are committed to the articulation of moral terms in a completely unfettered legal and juridical manner are able to avoid antinomianism?
"The evangelicals are anti-abortion. I guess that makes them necessary, too"
A funny can of worms to open... Maybe it is the too much coffee from coffee hour that has gotten me to even suggest... But keep an eye on the Evangelicals and the Emergent Church crowd who are tired of/dissinterested in "Your Father's Culture War™" and are putting "pro-lifery" on the backburner, and sometimes even turning the pilot light off on it. Anything too contentious can be ignored as they focus on "the important things"... If enough people disagree, they agree to disagree and not worry about it. Who wins there?
In the wake of Roe v. Wade - though this is NEVER talked about - the Southern Baptist Convention was preparing to issue a statement that recognized abortion as allowable. Contrary to the popular idea that Baptists turn people into conservative Republicans, it was the conservative Republicans that “saved the day” and turned Baptists into conservatives. It was vice versa.
After decades of overlap in bastions of Republicanism and Evangelicalism, a new generation of moderates and democrats are growing up in the ranks whose politics is informing the focus and stance of their religion. Young Evangelicals are not as concerned with getting in the mix of anti-gay marriage movements and pro-life actions. Now the answer to the question "Were the Republicans because they were Baptists or Baptists because they were Republicans?" is going to be answered outside the realm of the hypothetical.
One Catholic priest I know puts it well: "No Evangelical couple with a wife on the pill and a pre-nup on file is going to be against gay marriage forever. Once they realize "Adam & Steve" in the gentrified "gayborhood" is no threat to their marriate or suburban existence with granite counter-tops, his & hers SUVs, and strip-mall divorce lawyers... They won't wave that flag forever.
As much flak as I take for even so much as suggesting this, give the Evangelicals another generation and a half... The heirs to the post-Evangelical Christian community (be they called "Emergents" or some other name) will be about as pro-Life as the UMC, the ELCA, TEC, PCUSA, etc.
I hope I am wrong. Look me up in thirty years. If I am still around and was wrong, I will buy you all a beer.
In a recent conversation with a Bishop who was asked if the OC had a political position on abortion,he said (paraphrased) "We cannot let the world define our categories. We need to be prolife and prochoice because we believe abortion is murder but we also believe in free will. The Church needs to teach people why and how to choose life."
I agree with the bishop quoted in the last post.
Making absolutes and claiming never to waver sounds very noble but often results in failure.
Simply making something illegal or declaring it immoral does not eliminate it.
The Church does need to teach people why and how to choose life.
It has failed so far. That it has failed does not mean that it cannot attempt to do so and must therefore use the State as a last resort.
While we're at it, check this out
Inquiring Catholics want to know - which statement makes an Orthodox more likely to throw up in their mouth?
"These are but symptoms of a deeper reality, which is overcome on the Cross ... through the radical power of forgiveness, tolerance, and compassion."
"His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew is the spiritual leader of 300 million Orthodox Christians"
yes, yes - this resident of a glass house should not throw stones. We have to put up with this sort of thing weekly, it seems, from Vatican Eurocrats of one stripe or another. Its nice to see, on occasion, that the problem is not uniquely Catholic.
Anon,
Both of those statements are nauseating, but I really wonder what sort of "force" the EP has within Orthodoxy. Publications can call him the "spiritual leader" of X number of Orthodox all they want, but the reality is that he directly oversees a very tiny flock that is on the verge of extinction. Of all the Patriarchates, only Moscow wields any actual authority in relation to a large number of Orthodox Christians. The difference between the MP and the EP is that the MP stays within its proper orbit and doesn't attempt to speak for "all Orthodox" worldwide.
A Simple Sinner,
I have to say that I share your views on evangelicals. While there will always be a strong hold of conservatives in certain parts of the country, the reality is that their "normative" positions are being eroded by "higher" concerns all of the time. I also worry that older evangelicals--between 38-50--are also taking a few steps back after seeing what the "up and comers" are doing. Given the fact that the latest wave of evangelical literature and influence is coming from more "hip" circles, I suspect more than a few are being influenced by the empty message of "tolerance." The crumbling could already well be underway.
"The crumbling could already well be underway. "
I don't think that there is any "could" to it - it has already started. Then again, in all sincerity, it never stops. I a real sense the simultaneous strength and weakness of Protestantism is it re-invents itself so often. Always starting back at square one means a minimal proto-orthodoxy or semi-credal sub group will always be at the core of communities that have congregational polity. Taken to its extreme, we see finance committee meeting fights spin out of control into church splits.
While it is true that the PoC is NOT the "Pope of Orthodoxy" and he is largely dependent upon communities outside of Turkey for his support... Rumors even get whispered of a possible and likely re-location to someplace like Switzerland or New York - a la the Church of the East's Patriarch in Chicago - if Turkey continues on the trajectory it has which is one that has diminished the Orthodox of Istanbul into a ghetto population that could all live together in a large apartment complex here in Ohio. New questions get raised such as at what point do you pack it in and call it a day for a patriarchal see?
So when vague comments get made as to how Orthodox Christians work against the evils of abortion, people are left scrambling to understand his comments in a light appropriate to his place, and confirm its meaning in their minds... Some rather vitriolic types - sorry anon - may be prone to call him the "Patriarch of Death"... Some others show a pan-Orthodox unity and rush to explain.
Our Venerable Och notes that sans a Catholic concept of the magisterium the Orthodox are faring no worse than the Romans. Proof in the pudding is his working knowledge and familiarity with Catholic dissidents who (despite having a Pope) would say the same or worse. It is, we are told, really not all that different. For my part I take sollace and comfort when I run into such priests knowing in the back of my mind that when measured against that which is approved, they can be called a dissident. Och's sensibilities seem to rely on similar ideals, but based more on a consensus fidelium.
As I get older and after having these discussions for 10 years+, I am more and more finding myself saying "I have had this debate before, go look in the archives elsewhere and let's all just re-read them as opposed to jumping full in." More plainly, the Orthodox are no more convinced that this (possible) utterance that is (possibly) difficult comment points to a need for a magisterium, any more than the Orthodox are of the thinking a magisterium would have prevented this (possible) utterance that is (possibly) difficult comment.
I guess time will tell.
Well said Simple. I share your tiredness.
I increasingly see no point in arguments which amount to something like "look at x, it is a clear example of how it is that your ecclesiological system is not working as Christ intended the Church to work." Welcome to modernity folks - there are no ecclesial systems that are working the way Christ intended the Church to work. Efficiency and utilitarian success have never been a hallmark of the Church or any Christian group of significant age. At the end of the day, I am Orthodox because I believe what she teaches to be true, and have experienced the life of the Kingdom within her ("we have seen the True Light...."). The Orthodox Church maintains the God ordained ancient order of bishop-priest-deacon. The Church maintains dogmatic truth, and her liturgies are the activity of that truth expressed for the life of the world. But at the same time there is to be found ecclesial internecine warfare, corruption, the unfortunate manipulation of liturgies, poor and outright wrong expressions of doctrine by priests and bishops, and so forth. I think many folks desperately want to find proof - proof that the ecclesial system of their Church is correct and proof that the nearest ecclesial competitors are incorrect. They want this proof so that they can then rest their minds and their spirits. But as the Fathers of both Christian West and East make abundantly clear, there is no rest for the weary. We are called to fight, with body, intellect, spirit, until our last breath.
I told a priest once that I was uncomfortable with all this "coming home" language converts use. How can one feel at home in the midst of this great battle? I continue to fear such language in certain usages. The man who thinks he has fully arrived may be in great danger. At the same time, part of the battle consists in submitting ourselves to something that is concrete and manifest.
I think A Simple Sinner's RCC priest friend is fairly correct in his assessment. Not because I believe in the simplistic RCC arguments that contraception is the source of all social evil, but rather that it is one of the first manifestations - in family life - of a capitulation to the materialist, industrialist, nihilist thinking of the day. It is just a small step away from being sympathetic towards "many reasons" for prenatal infanticide.
As my priest once told my wife and me, saying that the Church has no place "in the bedroom" is consigning a large part of Christian marriage to darkness.
Och--I am Cardinal not Mr.
How could any of you deny that Catholics (Roman) have been more pro-life than the schismatics (or at least our separated brethren or canonically irregular)Eastern Orthodox? That is absurd
READ: official comments of your Patriarch of Death
than compare to the words and official comments of Pope John Paul II (or any Pope)
READ: Many Roman Catholic pro-life activists, leaders, home for unwed mothers, adoption programs, social services for children, food, housing, medical care, protests?
HOW MANY ORTHODOX????!!!
There are NO RC bishops who officially have said a statement like the Patriarch of Death.
Also, YES there are MANY bad Bishops and pro-abortion so called Catholic politicos. But besides maybe Spencer Abrhaham and Michael Brikallis, all of the Orthodox politicians in public life are pro-abortion like Mikos Dukasis, Paul Sarbonnes, Rod Blagojevich, Olympia Snowe, Paul Tsongas--a byzantine army of death.
YES, there are bad Catholic pro-abortion politicians. BUT there are people condemning them AND many pro-life Roman Catholics.
There is no active nor visible Orthodox voice on this (and I read Orthodox periodicals)
I will agree with much of the criticism of the Och regarding Catholicism but that is primarily in the last 50 years or so.
Come back into the unity with Peter as Jesus wants.
You can keep your liturgy and spiritual practices and even be sui juris--your own Church with laws.
A proof for the primacy of Rome with Eastern Rites are the Patriarchs in Jerusalem and Antioch and their mistreatment of the indigenous Arabs by the heresy of Hellenism. The existence of Melkites is because of the maltreatment by the Greeks.
The Orthodox have been mired in Caesero Papism and the historical proof of the necessity of Rome became clearly evident with the rise of the Mohammadens and communism.
Och:
1. Reject your schismatic ways.
2. Swear allegiance to Peter.
3. Keep all of your Eastern Customs but be Orthodox in union with Rome basically.
4. Defend human life more fully and not be with the pro-abortion Greeks and Serbians.
This Patriarch is not being pastoral but commiting grave error and immorality and being part of the killing of unborn children.
Good grief.
"There is no active nor visible Orthodox voice on this (and I read Orthodox periodicals)" Did you follow the link in the post - to the Orthodox pro-life periodical? Ever heard of Orthodox Christians for Life? (see http://www.oclife.org/) Ever read anything out of the Moscow Patriarchate on abortion?
When I was getting arrested outside of abortuary's during the rescue days, there were various Prots, Catholics, and Orthodox represented. Given how tiny the Orthodox church in North America is compared to the RCC and pro-life Evangelicalism, I would say that the Orthodox were proportionately greatly overrepresented in the radical wing of the pro-life movement, before RICO laws shut down rescue movement.
But, as both the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church canonically forbid necromancy, I will decline a debate with Cardinal John Fisher.
So, yes, the RCC has more homes for unwed mothers, therefore it must be the True Church.........
I think the late Cardinal martyr has a point that the Catholic Church (It is not actually the "Roman" Catholic Church but only Catholic with the Roman/Latin/Western being the largest of the 22 Churches all of them sui juris in union with Rome) has a larger, clearer and more visible pro-life presence.
And even with modernistic and masonic clerics and even bishops, no RCC (as you would say RCC) bishop has said anything as ignorant and harmful as this Patriarch (although the Patriarch of death is a polemic title that is unnecessary)
Necromancy is forbidden but occassionaly a dead saint appears to the faithful. I never heard of an apparition on the internet, but you may want to pay heed to admonishment to be in union with Peter.
Let us all pray for the end of legalized abortion.
May we pray for changing of hearts and minds of doctors who perform abortions, young women with children in the womb contemplating it, and the babies.
Well, I will say this, it is perfectly in keeping with what seems to me to be the spirit of modern Catholicism that it be presented in a manner which suggests that a sign of it being the true Church is its more efficient and publicly savvy forms of political activism.
I was hoping that someone would question me concerning my last comment above, but as no one has I will lay it on the table anyway: The Orthodox Church is not, in the Orthodox take (and this from thinkers ranging from Schmemann to Rose) on the matter, finally an ecclesial system. It has politics, and it is marketed, and shows the mechanisms of these things, but the breadth of Orthodox conviction is that these earthly mechanisms themselves do not constitute the Church. Catholics used to have a view of themselves something akin to this, but now, in modern Catholicism, one finds the faithful of various camps associating the truth of the Church with various crass and easily manipulated social mechanisms. Good luck with that.
"The Orthodox Church is not, in the Orthodox take on the matter, an ecclesial system"
So you have no problem accepting the existence of a universal jurisdictional supremacy? You're not an ecclesial system after all, tossed about by "easily manipulated social systems." I presume either conciliar-synodal governance or papal monarchy is equally acceptable to your apophatic rejection of "ecclesial systems?"
It must be nice to belong to Church that can be so freely dissociated from social mechanism. It's certainly in keeping with the tradition of the Church, which never had easily manipulable social mechanisms interfere with any of its councils - certainly not Nicaea! And we know for a fact that the truth of the Church in ancient times was equally free from social contamination - no pagans ever mistook the presence of large, active social mechanisms of charity and witness as a sign for conversion.
If only someone would undertake a Reformation of the Latin Church, and restore it to its true ancient glory, where the criteria for the truth of the Church are truly invisible, free from easily manipulated social mechanism! Where can one find such a Reformer?
“which never had easily manipulable social mechanisms interfere with any of its councils - certainly not Nicaea!”
I am increasingly amenable to Gabriel’s inclination that the majority of problems in contemporary thought have to do with historicism.
The truth of Nicaea, the truth of the Church, our true understanding of the Holy Trinity, none of these truths became true because of the agency of social mechanisms.
Of course these social mechanisms exists within the parameters of human affairs which we might rightly consider “Churched.” But the determination of what is Church is, in Orthodox reckoning, more that where one sees the activities of these social mechanisms, both visibly and invisibly, apophatically and kataphatically so.
It is interesting to note that with all Catholics other than some trads, both praxis and dogma are spoken of in historicist terms. Holy activities are known via the historical ephemera through which they are believed to have come about – note how many RC talking pointers speak down to Orthodox ritual, reminding folks of this or that supposed ritual origin, in order to suggest that the ritual is arbitrary and not of the divine origin to which Orthodox piety assents. The historical-critical methods damn the Orthodox in their eyes, but in turn they may neglect to realize that in doing this they become slaves to a historicist understanding of Church – their own rituals and dogmas are so denuded as well, and thus, in some fashion, negotiable.
When what is truth and what is Church is thought to be determined through social mechanism, as the above comment suggests, one has an ecclesial system in which truth and Church are little more than the manipulation of power. In VatI an arbiter of that power (in the RCC) is declared, who is to manipulate the manipulation of truth and Church, and steer the social mechanisms that drive the machine. This is the summit of humanism, I grant you. In the late modern notion of development of doctrine the status of social mechanism is elevated to something along the lines of the energies of the Holy Spirit in the Church, energies through which the truth does not change, or so we are told, but seems to do something akin to the processes associated with evolution or something akin to various 19th century theories of evolution.
I did not state that ecclesial systems have not associated themselves with the Orthodox Church – such associations are always present, for good and for ill. What I state is that there is no social mechanism which finally drives the Church, and any Christian who assents to One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church should assent to the notion that where they think that this Church is present the Holy Spirit leads and preserves, at least in final and essential matters (a leading and a preservations which, in my mind, should have no necessary relationship with particular ideologies or social mechanisms – there is some heaven in this business, believe it or not, and not all earth), and that other communions have been in some manner lead astray by the machinations of men.
I understand that you have a deep-seated appreciation for the limits of Hegelian theory when applied to ecclesial problems.
Nevertheless, I fail to see how you escape the basic charge of Protestant dialectical ecclesiology, where the pure and invisible Church escapes the messy historical and social mechanisms to which human societies are frequently subject. I would think the most sensible solution would be to reject the dichotomy altogether, rather than select the supra-historical horn of the dilemma.
Of course, such a rejection would lead one straightaway into a consideration of how the Church relates to history, and you don't seemed inclined to go there, other than to repeat cliched polemics about Vatican I.
So you don't think the modern Catholic solution to history is adequate, inclined as you are to view it as so much Hegelian nonsense. Fair enough, grind your polemical axe, and be done with it. But surely, you have a better defense for Orthodoxy than to say "we know she is True, because the Holy Spirit is there." As you might say, good luck with that when the Mormons come to your door.
Over and over again on this blog I have pointed folks to the best defense I know "for Orthodoxy" in regard to her articulation of herself and of truth in relation to the life and witness of Christ, etc. I subscribe to the hermeneutic of the Church as articulated by Fr. John Behr in his published work. This stands in contrast to both historicism and development of doctrine proper. I have outlined, described, and pointed to Behr's work many times on this blog and on others. I will not do so on every thread.
Your focus on something akin to a Prot notion of the invisible Church is simply incorrect. Notice how you have logically (and dialectically) associated "the messy historical and social mechanisms" with the visible Church. Do you actually believe that the spotless bride of Christ (as both RCs and EOCs believe that the Church does not finally err in dogma, Orthodox believe that the services codified in the typikon are truly divine) is visibly known through the mess, that the mess is the visible manifestation of Church? This seems to be what those who elevate the mess to the level of energy of the Holy Spirit believe. I do not. I believe that truth and the truth of the Church come to be known in spite of the sin of persons within the parameters of the Church. The politics, intrigue, corruption, pride, and envy surrounding a given event in the Church's history are not holy, nor is any historical process which inevitably involves such things a holy process. There is no necessary relationship between the work of the Holy Spirit and such a process. What is visibly holy in the Church in her liturgies, her sacred mysteries, her sacred offices, her sacred dogmas, and her holy persons, the saints. I believe that such as these holy things and persons are visible and manifest. I believe that such holy persons and things shine above the mess, and sanctify a messy world, which is to turn what is messy into that which is not messy, or not so messy. Thus I reject the Prot accusation.
Look, you can't go around posting tired accusations of Hegelianism with regard to the RCC and then fall back on vague invocations of Fr Behr's work.
And I still don't see how you've avoided Protestantism
"The politics, intrigue, corruption, pride, and envy surrounding a given event in the Church's history are not holy, nor is any historical process which inevitably involves such things a holy process. There is no necessary relationship between the work of the Holy Spirit and such a process"
Your local Baptist preacher is wont to agree with you here, and given all the politics, intrigue, corruption, pride and envy surrounding nearly any ecumenical council of your choosing, perhaps you can forgive him for rejecting them as the work of mere men, and not necessarily the Holy Spirit.
Anon,
Your comments are now incoherent.
My "accusations" of hegelianism were in response to specific questions. This thread is not about the RCC, hegelianism, or any of the like - these subjects came up only in regard to accusations made against the Orthodox faith, by way of contrasting simply stated positions with simply stated positions. Quite obviously neither side is going to fully articulate every polemical position here. I have epxressed on this and several other blogs my thoughts regarding the modern RCC and hegelianism. I have done this over the past three or so years. My thoughts are not comprehensive, nor will they ever be. So what?
As for the Baptist preacher, he is the other side of your coin, not mine. Your comment does not relate in any meaningful way to what I have written above. Look, you present yourself in various comments as a convinced historicist. You offer no argument whatsoever, nor even do you refer to such an argument, that shows how the "messy" relates to the truth of the Church. You do not answer the fundamental question I ask above. Yet you feel free to take pot shots at my views.
I am not going to follow in this rhetorical direction. Answer my questions, state your own position(s), or find something else to do with your time.
okay, fair enough - I see that you did not start the inter-confessional sniping, and can be at least partly excused for stooping to it.
As for positive arguments,here's one place that you could start if you wanted a more positive proposal regarding the relation of the historical to the dogmatic.
"Like Scripture, dogmas live in the Tradition, with this difference that the
scriptural canon forms a determinate body which excludes all possibility of further increase,
while the “dogmatic tradition,” though keeping its stability as the “rule of faith” from which
nothing can be cut off, can be increased by receiving, to the extent that may be necessary, new
expressions of revealed Truth, formulated by the Church. The ensemble of the dogmas which the Church possesses and transmits is not a body constituted once and for all, but neither has it
the incomplete character of a doctrine “in process of becoming.” At every moment of its
historical existence, the Church formulates the Truth of the faith in its dogmas, which always
express a fulness to which one adheres intellectually in the light of the Tradition, while never
being able to make it definitively explicit. A truth which would allow itself to be made fully explicit
would not have the quality of living fulness which belongs to Revelation: “fulness” and “rational
explicitness” mutually exclude one another. However, if the mystery revealed by Christ and
known in the Holy Spirit cannot be made explicit, it does not remain inexpressible. Since “the
whole fulness of deity dwells bodily” in Christ (Col 2:9), this fulness of the divine Word Incarnate
will be expressed as much in the Scriptures as in the “abridged word” of the symbols of faith36 or
of other dogmatic definitions. This fulness of the Truth that they express without making explicit,
allows the dogmas of the Church to be akin to the Holy Scriptures. It is for this reason that the
Pope St. Gregory the Great brought together in the same veneration the dogmas of the first four
Councils and the four Gospels"
As for the "messy" and the Church, at the risk of sounding platitudinous, one might suggest that, given her Founder's disinclination to call the righteous, that a preponderance of the messy might very well consitute a fundamental aspect of her existence in the world.
Setting aside the long quote for the moment (I read the Lossky 2-3 years ago, I will go over it again as I have time), I would like to think further on the messy.
The Gospels tell us that Christ came to heal the sick and not those who have no need for a physician, and that He calls sinners and not the righteous. I am glad that you quote this here because it has been quoted to me before in defense of a position similar to what yours seems to be, and I would like to address this.
There is some irony in the Gospel's juxtaposition of "sinners" and "the righteous." Here "the righteous" refers to the scribes, the Pharisees, the teachers of the law, and we know from numerous other of Christ's sayings that He did not consider these kind to be truly righteous, and certainly not holy. Thus "the righteous" does not refer to those who stand right before God. Later Christian Tradition is quite clear on the requisite humility to which one is called in the Christian life, and the great danger and evil of pride and spiritual presumption. The difference between "the sinners" Christ came to call and "the righteous" is that the sinners are presumably, in theory, still open to repentance, whereas the righteous feel no need to repent. In the Church, all persons are called to repentance, the Church acknowledges no human person (save Christ) who has no need to repent.
Now, where is the Church visibly known? Is the sign and image of the Church to be found in persons who do not repent? Or is the sign and image of the Church to be found in persons who do repent? You seem to be suggesting that there is a necessary relationship between unrepentant activity and the disclosure of truth. I say whatever historical ephemera there may be associated in this regard, there is no necessary relationship between truth/dogma, and some sinful activity/process through which these are known.
In the Church's hagiographic reading of the councils and the lives of the holy men who influenced them, the emphasis is on that which holiness has brought about as it overcomes and overcame the evil associated with these events. No doubt there was evil, intrigue, etc., but this evil does not exist in a necessary dialectic relationship with the holy. For the holy to exist, we do not have to have the evil, hence the various council Fathers always saying, essentially, this is what the Church has always believed, etc. The image of the Holy Spirit working through the Church in the world is not that of "look at this mess, it is a mess, but really it is holy, deep down inside, and/or will have some holy residual effect...." but rather the Holy Spirit images Himself in the world through the (kenotic) image of repentance, the image of the messes getting cleaned up, the sick healed, sinners made truly righteous, the restoration of all things in Christ.
Furthermore, one should keep in mind that the literary tradition which focuses on the "mess" of the early Church was begun and was made to flourish by those who overtly hated the Church, hated the presentation of Christological and Trinitarian orthodoxies, and hated traditional Christian piety. This is the pedigree of that form of scholarship. So where am I to put the bulk of my trust? In the historical-critical readings of patristic history and texts, which from the beginning were intended to undermine traditional Christian belief? Or in the Church's own reading of the Fathers and her history, as found in the liturgical texts and in her hagiographic materials? Where should the Orthodox Christian place the weight of his intellect? I do not know to what degree you embrace the historical-critical readings of the fathers, but I know that these readings are what has brought about modern sentiments regarding "the messy" nature of the early Church, especially the councils and questions of authority, etc. This has been picked up by those with late modern sentiments who think that we should not cease to lust after the “earthy” and "incarnational" understandings of the Christian faith, in which sin and disorder itself becomes deified instead of repented of, in which God's holiness seems to need some edge of primordial chaos in order to be worthy of veneration or to be thought of a "real" or “relevant” or "honest" or "bold." I see such inclinations as childish forms of ascribing to God our own pettiness and desire.
Maybe someone can explain to me why people get so fired up about abortion and contraception. There are lots of other issues out there, but the outrage about these two puzzles me.
"The Orthodox Church maintains the God ordained ancient order of bishop-priest-deacon.'
God ordained this....where?
You'll have to really, really stretch the notion of ordained to find this anywhere in the New Testament.
Whether Orthodox like it or not..here's an example of "development".
Bishop-priest-deacon represents a hierarchical structure that just, just, might not reflect how people now see and interpret society nowadays.
They may be wrong or they may be right and that's why this structure is increasingly irrelevant to most people.
Ah...of course, I forget. The people aren't really important nor do they have anything to say being so ignorant.
"Maybe someone can explain to me why people get so fired up about abortion and contraception."
It's about sex, that dreaded word and more importantly, about women and their "vocation".
We are Church, dude.
Got it.
Ochlophobist -
I extend my condolences. Your anonymous commenter has clearly devastated your entire theological project. Who knew that the Orders of the Church were not actually in the New Testament? I bet you wish you had read that thing first, huh?
Here's something even better...I just saw in my Scofield bible that Jesus told us to call no man "Father". You are totally screwed. Time to pack up shop.
Jack,
If an Evangelical with strong Orthodox sympathies may make some bald assertions without the careful arguments that ultimately underlie them (others here are more capable of making them), here would be my gut-level answer:
Abortion is murder. It is the murder of someone helpless, indeed of a helpless child, in that place that should be safest of all, in his mother's womb. It is murder for profit (to the abortionist). It is murder from such "compelling" motives as avoiding economic disadvantage, inconvenience, and the detection of illicit behavior (to the mother, or, more commonly, to the boyfriend/husband/mother/father who is pressuring the mother into the abortion). It is mass murder on an unfathomable scale -- the roughly 50 million abortions in America alone since Roe v. Wade are in the same ballpark as number of murders accomplished by Stalinist Russia or Maoist China, dwarfing as amateurish the "accomplishments" of an Adolf Hitler or a Saddam Hussein. The average daily abortion count in America in the 35 years since Roe v. Wade is higher than the number of murders accomplished by the terrorists on the single day of 9/11/01. Add to this the particular hatred God expresses in the Scriptures for the shedding of innocent blood, and the terrible irony that the abortion count is so high in a nation that loudly proclaims its own freedom and justice, and it is hard to find another "issue" (I hate that word) worthy of such outrage and grief.
Contraception (as commonly practiced -- there are obvious exceptions) denies that God created man in His Own image and that man is, thus, by nature only free (indeed only alive) as he, in communion with God, grows up into that image. it asserts, to the
contrary, that man is sovereign over himself and that his true freedom and greatest good comes from his unfettered choice to make of himself whatever he wills to be. More specifically contraception breaks the natural (i.e., God-designed) ties of marriage, union, and fruitfulness, ties that are intended, it seems, to serve as pictures of greater truths, of the union between Christ and His Church, even perhaps of the union among the Persons of the Trinity. Thus the widespread practice of contraception obscures man's view of what God is like and of what it is to be human, making the "narrow way" to life even more difficult to find. The particular, lesser evils that result from this are endless, but among them is that it opens the door for abortion, which then becomes simply another expression of personal sovereignty (the self-chosen label "pro-choice" gets at the heart of the matter). Nevertheless contraception is almost universally practiced among American Christians (perhaps even more generally among Western Christians -- here I lack the knowledge to comment), even among those who abhor abortion. This suggests that our vision of what sort of life the Lord calls His people to has grown dim indeed, reflecting far more of humanistic pride than spiritual humility.
I had heard this before, but as it was only a fleeting reference from a super-correct source, I had hoped it had been greatly exaggerated; this is worse than I expected.
First of all, the Patriarch correctly points out the Orthodox teaching that personhood is from the moment of conception, and then says the Church respects Human life "generally". I wonder what kind of "economia" the Patriarch extends to those who wish to commit murder? I suppose something like "Thou shalt not kill, unless you really, really want to". He should be grateful that his opponents don't accept his teachings; there could be many who might find it tempting to say "Though I am against assassination in principle, I cannot generalize, and there are many reasons to go toward offing a Patriarch who has no regard for the teachings of the Church".
One cannot grasp a coherent view of the EP's statements because it is clear that he doesn't really believe in the principles he puts out for public consumption; that is why his official statements so often constitute a kind of moronic blather, because it is necessary for him to wear the veil of religious conservativism while subtly guiding things in the direction of the Humanist principles in which he truly believes.
What does the Greek mean?
Orthodox tradition is just as much against contraception as the Roman Catholic hierarchy; in fact, you would be hard pressed to find a christian confession that didn't regard contraception as an evil thing before Planned Parenthood began to work its political sorcery. I think, though, that some level of contraception must be tolerated as a matter of economia, because things have been made so difficult for large families; some can afford continuous medical care for ten children (which the State demands), but many can't. The principle remains: You marry for the purpose of fecundity, and accept each life which comes as a blessing from God; otherwise, you have pure craziness, with the entire population in clinics, some trying to boost fertility, because they have finally decided, at the age of 45, that they are "ready" for children, and others trying to suppress fertility, because they are not yet ready, or seeking to destroy a life they regard as a tragic accident because it did not arrive as a direct expression of their power of choice.
"The Patriarch of Death" is, of course, inflammatory rhetoric; unfortunately, to label Constantinople as "The PC Patriarchate" would be nothing less than accurate.
The EP is not the Pope of the Eastern Church; we do not owe fidelity to his teachings. He and we are both responsible to a higher authority; the Spirit-guided Councils and the Holy Tradition of the Church. The Ecumenical Patriarch does have responsibility as the First-among-equals of those charged with teaching and preserving the traditions of the Church (God have mercy on him!). For the EP to say the things he apparently has does not constitute the kind of theological disaster for the Orthodox that it would for the Catholics if there were ever a Pope who said such things (and there may eventually be one). Anyone who will take the time can look into the Canons of the Church and see that there is no such teaching, and that being the case, it doesn't matter what the Ecumenical Patriarch says, except that in doing so he places a possibly unsupportable burden on his soul by confusing a lot of uninformed people. To be Orthodox means to subscribe to the things the Church has taught for 2,000 years; if there are those who choose to pseudonymously call themselves Orthodox while holding to what amounts to a rather watered-down kind of Buddhism, there's nothing I can do about it, except exhort them to be more honest. I suspect those with too great an abhorrence for theological "formulas" will be encompassed by Christ's words "Depart from me, you who practice lawlessness".
The Evangelical "21st Century" movement will bring the dissolution of any adherence to any kind of specifically christian doctrine, just as the Liberal Christianity of the early 20th century did.
This spineless Bishop has neglected his responsibility; he will answer to Christ. Anyone can explain why we need to choose life; it is the role of the Bishop to say "This is the teaching of the Church, and any that do not adhere to it cannot be in good standing with the Church".
It is probably true that the Greek Church has driven many into the arms of Rome (not Peter, who was never Bishop of Rome, and never regarded as the Head of the Church - look at the Council in Jerusalem in the book of Acts if you doubt it) by its relentless ethnocentrism. Scripture does not say that the Greek shall inherit the Earth. These are sins of the Church, but do not constitute a reason for becoming Orthodox in name only by embracing an ecclesiology alien to the Church of Christ and the doctrinal errors which spring from it through coming into union (read: subjection, for the Roman Pope knows of no other kind of relationship) with a Bishop who, through pride and delusion, has come to regard himself as the universal Prince of the Bishops, and can therefore no longer be regarded as a Bishop of Christ's Church.
Yes, the Church is a Holy institution, preserved from error by the power of the Holy Spirit, and yes, it is filled with imperfect people; this does not mean it is O.K. to be imperfect. Everyone in the Church should be striving for perfection, and the Priests and Bishops should be men who have made some progress in this struggle, rather than just being competent administrators; it has been said that a Bishop, in particular, needs to be a Saint in order to responsibly discharge his office. There are a lot of unqualified Bishops out there. Holy Russia and Imperial Russia did somewhat overlap, at times, but they were not identical, and when the Imperial Power placed itself over both State and Church, this produced ecclesial disorder; this impeded the Church, but did not destroy the Church. What destroys the Church is when imperfect situations become regarded as the norm, and we therefore cease to strive for the perfect.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home