CommittedToTheG
No bio...
User ID: 3371
CommittedToTheG
1mo ago
I agree that the Filioque is not an irreconcilable theological difference, but the controversy exposed the broader question of authority. Did the Pope have direct universal jurisdiction in the pre-schism church? I would say no, he clearly did not have that sort of "primacy". He could not directly act in the internal affairs of the other Patriarchs. In the lead up to the schism (depending on when you date it), Rome did attempt to assert novel authority over Constantinople, in part based on forgeries such as the Donation of Constantine. Yes, I do realize that the current Creed is the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, as set by the Second Ecumenical Council, and I do understand that the Pope's infallibility is limited and he can be wrong (or even a heretic, in the case of Honorius). Though the idea that any one bishop could be infallible at all is a scandalous thing from the East's perspective (the Eastern Orthodox mind cannot comprehend this lol).
I would ultimately more or less agree with the sentiment Joseph Ratzinger expresses here (quoted from Wikipedia):
In his 1987 book Principles of Catholic Theology, Pope Benedict XVI (then Cardinal Ratzinger) assessed the range of "possibilities that are open to Christian ecumenism." He characterized the "maximum demand" of the West as the recognition by the East of and submission to the "primacy of the bishop of Rome in the full scope of the definition of 1870..." The "maximum demand" of the East was described as a declaration by the West of the 1870 doctrine of papal primacy as erroneous along with the "removal of the Filioque from the Creed and including the Marian dogmas of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries." Ratzinger asserted that "(n)one of the maximum solutions offers any real hope of unity."
Ratzinger wrote that "Rome must not require more from the East than had been formulated and what was lived in the first millennium." He concluded that "Reunion could take place in this context if, on the one hand, the East would cease to oppose as heretical the developments that took place in the West in the second millennium and would accept the Catholic Church as legitimate and orthodox in the form she had acquired in the course of that development, while on the other hand, the West would recognize the Church of the East as orthodox in the form she has always had."
CommittedToTheG
1mo ago
Sorry I assumed your denomination! What you say about Whelton's take on ecclesiology is intriguing, and I'll have to look further into it. I don't remember anything he said on the matter striking me as potentially incorrect, but then I come out of the OCA which tends to follow St. Vladimir's Seminary and thus the tradition of the Paris school that was a big part of the ressourcement you, I think correctly, identify.
I agree that Augustine is unnecessarily vilified. He is a great saint of the church (in my parish he is one of the great hierarchs depicted on the apse). With some nuance, I think Orthodox and Catholic ideas about original sin could be reconciled. There are unhelpful polemics by both sides, and the Orthodox often end up attacking something more like the Calvinist understanding. I was recently reading this piece which definitely "problematizes" a simplistic view of things.
I am not a big fan of what I know of Romanides, and I have always had a view of Heaven and Hell that is very C.S. Lewis (though maybe something like The Great Divorce is not juridical enough for you?). I definitely believe that Christ will return as Judge, and I am not a Universalist (we can hope, perhaps, but I reject certainty on this question). In general, I tend to be fairly apophatic about the next life and can tolerate ambiguity on the details. How far does that put me from the central Orthodox belief? I am not sure. I don't know if you ever had the stomach for Lord of Spirits (I have to listen on 2x speed), but the content of their episode on Hell/Universalism (What in Tarnation) is pretty good, and my beliefs would fit within their framework.
I agree that some Orthodox thinkers (polemicists?) are too negative when it comes to "Western reason", but the idea that the Eastern fathers were against reason or that modern Orthodox theologians and thinkers are not philosophically sophisticated can also be a caricature of the East. You may or may not have heard of Dr. Nathan Jacobs, but I've recently been following his exploration of the philosophy of the Eastern Fathers. My take would be that the East is skeptical of systematic theologies that are Rationalist/Cartesian projects, but this is probably unfair to nuanced Western thought (I love me some Paschal, for instance).
Enjoyed hearing about your story and your general thoughts! I'm glad I finally have something I am an "expert" in (my own theological thoughts and opinions) that I can share with The Motte by responding to you.
I'll have to check that out. I recently read Two Paths by Michael Whelton. He presents things in a fairly detached and non-triumphalist way, but his final judgement reflects the fact that he is a Catholic who became Orthodox. A Catholic response to some of his points would be interesting to read, but another Orthodox perspective that a current Catholic recommends might also be a good way to "fact check" him.
CommittedToTheG
1mo ago
The Eastern Orthodox would basically say the same thing - that Roman Catholics need to go back to believing what they believed about the Pope before the 800s or so for there to be a reunion.
The Orthodox would grant the Pope primacy, but for the Orthodox that means a position of honor as the first among equals. The Pope would not have direct universal jurisdiction over the whole church and could not alter dogma, as he did neither of those things prior to (the lead-up to) the schism. Yes, the Eastern bishops would at times appeal to Rome as a neutral arbiter in their various disputes, but at the Ecumenical Councils did everyone just defer to the Pope? (at some he was barely involved) Did all the apostles just defer to St. Peter? St. Paul resisted him "to his face". The Council of Jerusalem was not decided by St. Peter and was presided over by St. James (if you want to go all the way back).
I think from the Orthodox perspective what you are leaving out about the schism is that the Roman Catholics made an addition to the Creed. The Creed was set by the Ecumenical Councils. No bishop has the authority to alter doctrine set by the Ecumenical Councils on his own, let alone enforce that alteration on the whole church. This is where the heart of the issue is for the Orthodox.
You give an accurate and quite entertaining description of a certain type of Orthodox parish/parishioner. As a cradle Orthodox Christian who is the child of American converts, my central member of the class Eastern Orthodox is quite different, but I understand how off-putting the types you describe would be if they were one's first Orthodox experience (and they certainly exist).
I belong to the Orthodox Church in America, which was founded by Russian missionaries and has self governed since the rise of communism in Russia. Most churches in the OCA serve fully in English. Priests are required to have secular and seminary degrees and are generally well-groomed. The liturgical chant is the Russian-style four part harmony, so it is basically music sung by a Western-style choir. There are traditionally ethnic parishes, but in many areas (like the Southeast, where I live), the churches are culturally American.
The Greek Orthodox churches in North America might sometimes be less welcoming to non-Greeks (though this is quickly changing in many places as converts come in), but they are generally pretty Westernized and clean-cut (the Greeks Westernized their liturgical/clerical practices in America to give off a more "normal" Catholic/Episcopalian vibe - the GOA church in my city even has an organ).
The Antiochian Churches are also often full of American converts, or, if they are more ethnic, are similar to what TheLoser describes below regarding his/her experience in the Coptic Church.
The type of experience you had sounds stereotypical of ROCOR or maybe an insular Greek or otherwise ethnic parish. To the degree that Orthodoxy has a future in the West, it is probably not in parishes like that.
CommittedToTheG
2mo ago
The thread uniting the various autocephalous churches (lifted from Wikipedia):
The Eastern Orthodox Church is defined as the Eastern Christians which recognize the seven ecumenical councils and usually are in communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the Patriarchate of Alexandria, the Patriarchate of Antioch, and the Patriarchate of Jerusalem. The Eastern Orthodox churches "are defined positively by their adherence to the dogmatic definitions of the seven [ecumenical] councils, by the strong sense of not being a sect or a denomination but simply continuing the Christian church, and, despite their varied origins, by adherence to the Byzantine rite". Those churches are negatively defined by their rejection of papal immediate and universal supremacy.
I think the recent "splintering" has been pretty overblown, lay people under the Ecumenical Patriarch can still commune at churches that are under the Moscow Patriarchate, and vice versa. Our clergy cannot currently serve together, but this is not a total breaking of communion. This sort of thing has happened throughout church history and generally gets resolved (though sometimes not, certainly). Most likely outcome is: the war in Ukraine ends, tensions cool, the Patriarchs (or maybe their successors) start commemorating one another again, and full communion is restored.
Is the main issue that the Orthodox Church doesn't practice open communion? I would say that the Orthodox can certainly recognize other Christians. Canonically you are only allowed to marry a fellow Nicene Christian (Mormons, for instance, would be out), so there is a recognition of a degree of sameness. Likewise, the Ecumenical Councils say that if someone has already had a trinitarian baptism with immersion performed by another Christian group they can simply be received into the Orthodox Church via chrismation. In the case of some churches which are seen as especially close, like the Oriental Orthodox, confession and a statement of faith is all that is required, demonstrating that in practice the other apostolic churches are viewed as having a degree of validity to their sacraments and ecclesiology (for an ecclesiology example: Catholic priests can be received by vesting if they become Orthodox, they do not have to be re-ordained). The precise way in which all of the above should be formulated in a systematic theology is not without controversy, of course, and there are more rigorist factions, but these are practices that are rooted in the dictates of the Ecumenical Councils.
As someone who was raised Orthodox in the United States, it has been interesting to see the growing awareness of the Orthodox Church in the English speaking world and the Eastern Orthodox entry into the internet apologetics wars. There are certainly some Orthodox personalities who do not put the church's best foot forward, so I understand why people get turned off in various ways. But I also think there are ways in which the Orthodox Church gets misunderstood (strawmen abound in apologetics, and the Orthodox are certainly guilty as well).
When it comes to the issue of communion and church unity, the Orthodox Church has a pretty strong sacramental view. Joining the church and becoming part of the body of Christ is like a marriage (as in Ephesians). We can see the other Christian groups, they are like a woman who shares many/most of our values and may even be very beautiful with a great personality, but until we are formally married I cannot commune with her. And you probably shouldn't get married until you agree on the important issues (and on which issues are the important ones). For Protestants who have a "mere symbol" view of communion I think this paradigm can be difficult to inhabit.
CommittedToTheG
2mo ago
Did not expect to see a reference to Fr. Thomas Hopko here… he baptized me as an infant.
I am Eastern Orthodox and would be glad to recommend a church if you DM me (especially if you happen to live in the Southeastern US or the US in general - though if you feel like the walls of wokeness are really closing in I'm guessing you may live in a very blue area).
Thoughts on some of your questions/concerns:
-
I don't think you have to choose between wokeness and the fear of hellfire. Traditional/high church Christians in this day and age tend to be fairly sophisticated when it comes to hell (you might be more likely to encounter people who have full blown universalist tendencies, though I may be generalizing too much from my own experience). The early church fathers tended to be fairly nuanced on damnation. CS Lewis' The Great Divorce is a good example that is more modern. My point is - I don't think you have to worry too much about someone feeling the need to scare your daughter in some crude way in order to teach her Christian orthodoxy.
-
What is a genuine religious revival supposed to look like? I think it would look something like the strategy of the early Christians. Scott recently wrote about this, and N.S. Lyons writes about it here (he speaks of conservative strategy in the piece, but in the comment section he confirms that Christianity is a successful example).
(apologies if this is too promotional or inappropriate in some way - this is my first time posting after a year+ of lurking)
Great comment, very informative.
I did have the thought recently that some of the conservative trends people observe in the Catholic Church could make reunion more difficult. If the Spirit of Vatican II wanes, East and West would become more aligned in worship and practice, but at the same time a confidently traditional Catholic Church might assert its dogmatic claims more vigorously.
More options
Context Copy link