This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
It's quite obvious to me that the biggest problem is the Great Schism of 1054, where the patriarch of Rome decided he was better than the rest of the Church, based on specious reading of scripture.
Can you expound upon where the Great Schism of 1054 was Rome going off the rails? Because this is how Catholics see it:
From here, I have done some formatting because gosh that's a wall of text with names no one's heard about before.
Distilling down the barest essentials:
Patriarch of Constantinople declares, based on a document written by a local theologian, that Roman disciplines of consecrating unleavened bread and fasting on Saturday are horrible and disqualifying from being a member of the Church. They go so far as to desecrate the Eucharist in Roman churches.
Pope sends delegation that explains to the theologian how they are wrong, and that this ancient practice of the Latin Church is not disqualifying or heretical. Patriarch refuses to even see them.
Once it becomes clear that the Patriarch's side isn't going to win, he excommunicates the Pope. The papal legates excommunicate the Patriarch using the authority they have from the Pope (except at this time, unbeknownst to them, the Pope is dead so the excommunication isn't even valid on the Latin side, which was discovered shortly after).
Most of the Church didn't realize there's a permanent Schism, it slowly develops over time. The Massacre of the Latins in Constantinople in 1182 was a more significant event, with 60,000 Latins dead or sold into slavery, but the Schism probably really became permanent in the Fourth Crusade with the Sack of Constantinople.
This is the version I have always heard. Specifically, the Patriarch excommunicates the legates, not the Patriarch of Rome. Which is a crucial distinction:
From https://orthodoxwiki.org/Great_Schism#cite_note-Cross-1.
This is another major issue which... is pretty unambiguously the fault of the See of Rome.
While I'm sure there are a ton of small historical details you can quibble about, to me the overall thrust makes it pretty obvious that Rome is in the wrong. That being said, I try to be ecumenical and I do hope that the Church can become whole again one day. We'll see!
Politically or theologically?
I would say desecrating the Eucharist in 1054 and killing/expelling/enslaving all Italian Catholics in 1182 are both examples of Constantinople being in the wrong politically first.
I can't say for certain if the Papal Legates were on their best behavior or not in Constantinople. It seems like there are many sources and sides to the story, all of them undoubtedly biased.
Fortunately, what I can say is none of that matters as far as whether one should be Catholic or Orthodox. The question of if I should be Catholic or Orthodox is a theological question. Is there theological basis for Roman Primacy? I believe the answer is "Yes." I believe that the answer has been yes, and was demonstrably so even before the Synod of Chalcedon.
I would love for us to heal the schism. From Rome's perspective I don't think there's anything we'd require the other side to change, just reconfirmation of Rome's primacy. We already have many Eastern Catholic Churches that have a multiplicity of different views and practices. We see the Orthodox as having valid Holy Orders and sacraments.
Both of the churches were wrong politically in many ways - I'll be honest I haven't done a full accounting of the details as I frankly don't have the time or inclination. Part of my decision is based on looking at the 'spirit' of both churches today, and since the schism. Another part is just the fact that Rome essentially took what was an overall democratic church, and demanded to have sole power over all of Christendom. Those two things together are strong evidence from my perspective that Rome was in the wrong.
Frankly I think even the 5 sees being somehow more "legitimate" than other churches is a bit suss, although I'll say that I'm definitely a Nicene Christian.
See, this is the problem! Basically the entire schism comes down to Rome asserting primacy that is not apostolic! You can't just say "we want to end the argument, you just have to give in to all of my demands that actually matter to you" and expect it to work.
See, that's not clear to me that this is the schism! For me, I think I'm asking that the East just goes back to believe about the Roman Pontiff the same things they believed before the 800s. Even Photius and Cerularius, the critical players in the East-West schism, never argued that the Petrine doctrine could justify schism.
For example of a Pope exercising primacy:
Before Sergius died, in 638, he assembled a great Synod at Constantinople, which accepted a "one will" formula as "truly agreeing with the Apostolic preaching." This synod was without any Papal legates nor did it receive Papal approval afterwards. The outcome of this council is not considered infallible or orthodox.
Subsequent Popes and Patriarchs rejected Monothelitism (with one Pope refusing to confirm Paul as Patriarch of Constantinople until after he stopped using the "one will" formula), but there was still some confusion about if Jesus had "one operation" or "two operations."
To clear all this up, Pope St. Agatho sent legates to the General Council in Constantinople in 680. The legates brought with them a letter in which the Pope defined the "two wills, two operations" terminology with authority as the successor of St. Peter, binding the council to accept. The council did and rejected the Monothelites.
That seems to me like the Pope undoubtedly exercising Primacy and the East recognizing this. I can point to dozens of other examples of the Pope settling disputes among various other Apostolic Sees, like when Dennis of Alexandria was accused of heresy, he appealed to Rome and was cleared. Let's look at a council document:
To me, the source of the schism is the liturgical intolerance exhibited by the Byzantine Greeks towards Latin customs and usages. In every council document and story of the schism that I see, that is the primary difficulty that starts the argument. Even Photius admitted to Papal Supremacy in his letters to Rome, when he is appealing to Rome to help his case.
Instead, arguments about Papal Supremacy seem to be ad hoc justification, because the best reason not to be in communion with the Pope would be something like a lack of agreement on the Petrine doctrine. But that wasn't the actual disagreement.
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.
The Council of Rimini in 359 had over 400 bishops in attendance. This council produced and agreed to the Arian formulas that, "the Son is like the Father according to the Scriptures" and "the Son is not a creature like other creatures." Pope Liberius recognized this as an attempt from Arians to lead to statements that Jesus is not God Begotten and rejected the council. Many who signed the council documents then repudiated it. In view of the lack of approbation by the Holy See, it had no universal authority. We see Papal Authority define dogma, superseding the findings of a council of over 400 bishops from the East and West.
Papal primacy does not require the Pope to be always correct, to never be resisted, or for him to be involved with every dispute. However, for there to be a teaching out of a Council that is binding on the whole Church, it does require the acceptance of the Successor of Peter. Peter was present at the Council of Jerusalem, even if he's not the one who wrote the Council documents he set the tone and James promulgated it:
I think most people don't understand that the Catholic Church does not make claims that the Pope is always correct or that he can just make up a new doctrine. The claim is not that the Pope is the one who has to call each council or determine the final council documents. We don't want the Orthodox to believe anything like that. We would just like for the same position of honor that was held in the past, because that is the road to unity instead of division.
Prior to the last 50 years or so there wasn't much discussion between the East and the West, and lots of misconceptions flourished. We didn't have as clear communication as we have now. The Petrine Doctrine is not the cartoon that (some) Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants act like it is.
That's because Dag said Catholics went off the rails in 1054, which is after the Filioque controversy. I would argue that the Filioque controversy is another instance of the East being intolerant towards Latin customs and usages.
Rome has never asked the East to say the words in their Creed. Eastern Catholic Churches do not say the Filioque. The East grew upset that the West created a new translation of the Latin text for internal Latin use.
The trouble with the Filioque is that, in Latin, there is no obvious difference between Spirate and Generate. In Greek it is clearer. The Greek word ἐκπορευόμενον (ekporeuomenon) refers to the ultimate source from which the proceeding occurs, but the Latin verb procedere (and the corresponding terms used to translate it into other languages) can apply also to proceeding through a mediate channel.
But if the persons of the Trinity are only distinct in relation to each other, and there is no distinction in the Latin Creed, then the Latins risk falling into heresy that either the Son and Spirit are the same or that there are differences in the Trinity that are not relational. In the Latin Church, the formulation "From the Father and the Son" has ancient roots, far older than the schism. Tertullian, Jereome, Ambrose, and Augustine all used this formula.
What about Ephesus I canon 7? Didn't that say that no other creed than the one promulgated at the First Council of Nicaea should be used? If that's the case, the East is in as much trouble as the West here. Because the creed from the First Council of Nicea isn't the one you say at your Divine Liturgy. Both the East and the West use the creed from the First Council of Constantinople. Take a look here, which do you use?
Ephesus I Canon 7 wasn't actually considered a part of the universal deposit of faith. Ephesus I canons 7 and 8 are omitted in some collections of canons and the collection of Dionysius Exiguus omitted all the Ephesus I canons. At the time, it was not held that they concerned the Church as a whole.
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):
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
There was a time when the pope was basically chosen by italians only, but with the elections today, is there really a relevant way in which Rome is asserting primacy here, if the doctrinal points are compatible? It seems to me that the church would be "overall democratic" either way - its rather about more vs less centralisation.
The Pope is just the Bishop of Rome. There's no position available for "The Pope but not the Bishop of Rome."
The Bishop of Rome can only be elected by bishops in his rite. Eastern Catholic rites do not participate in the election of the Pope.
Nobody on either side of the debate wishes to force all Orthodox to change to the Latin rite. That would not be worth the fraction of political power gained by sending a cardinal to the conclave.
More options
Context Copy link
I mean Rome as the patriarchal seat, compared to the rest of the pentarchy. (i.e. the Orthodox church.)
So, if Rome got a separate bishop, and the pope was only head of the catholic church, that would resolve the issue? I would be surprised if its that easy.
For me absolutely. If Rome agreed to once again become just a patriarchal See instead of dominating the whole Church, I’m fine with that. Idc about the Filioque really.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If you’re interested in an Orthodox perspective that offers a grounded, non-triumphalist take on how the Orthodox view Papal primacy in the first millennium, I strongly recommend Laurent Cleenewerck’s His Broken Body. I recommend it both to Catholic and to Orthodox readers — he refuses to stump for either side, and deals frankly, and charitably, with the patristic evidence. He’s clearly someone for whom the schism is a wound, not an amputation.
I was taught the Schism by a Ukranian Byzantine Catholic who didn't present it as a "Rome was always right" point of view, who clearly felt the wound deeply, but still felt like union was more important than our disagreements.
More options
Context Copy link
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.
A fair warning that, though he analyzes the patristic evidence powerfully and fairly, he also has a unique model of catholicity that he sees as the bridge between Orthodoxy and Catholicism. He at times presents this as the "Orthodox view of ecclesiology," but I'm given to understand that it's more of a minority view. But still, I found his views on ecclesiology irresistible.
And, to be clear, I am not a current Catholic, nor have I ever been received into the Catholic Church. I believed firmly in Catholicism for a long time, and the priest who worked with me was happy to receive me, but I backed away because of issues of conscience with some Catholic doctrines, and personal struggles with sin -- as well as, to be blunt, utter confusion as to what Catholicism precisely was in a post-conciliar world.
I had a similar experience with Orthodoxy -- the "intellectual evangelical convert" in my narrative wasn't a caricature, but actually myself, and my mother and my girlfriend indeed accompanied me to liturgy a few times and didn't like it. My struggles with Orthodoxy were not so much about doctrines I could not assent to, but about doctrines that were load-bearing in my Christian faith, like the principle of "faith seeking understanding", the concept of inherited fallenness and separation from God (original sin), the importance of divine justice, and the reality of Hell as a place of separation from God (and tragically suffering), being hard to reconcile with the Eastern Orthodox approach especially post-Romanides.
I would argue that both Catholicism and Orthodoxy underwent a severe and belief-altering ressourcement in the 60s, and that has brought them closer in some ways -- every time I read Catholic theologians talking about paschal mystery theology, they sound very Orthodox to me -- but also separated them, injecting polemic where there might have been agreement. While I agree with Orthodox reservations about De Trinitate and believe his works must be understood extremely carefully, I hold St. Augustine to be a great saint, and a personal patron, and the view among some Orthodox that outright denies his sanctity or experience of divine grace is unnecessary and offensive.
I do not believe the West is the author of heresies, as many of Orthodoxy's greatest writers do, and I believe reason in religion to be, not the enemy of divine illumination, but a means of illumination that opens the mind to be receptive to divine grace by teaching how truly deep "the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God" are, in the words of the apostle. I worry sincerely that Eastern Orthodoxy often collapses into a kind of quietism that does not reflect the serious philosophical and theological capacity for thought I see in the fathers of the Church.
I've tried not to present myself as a Catholic, but a "mere Christian," defending views that I believe represent Christianity at its fullness, but this often means I defend Catholic doctrine because, to be blunt, I agree with it as a matter of theology. At the very least, my goal is that Catholicism is described fairly, as I believe Catholics deserve a fair hearing and don't always get it.
But, to make a long story short, this hopefully answers @TheDag's question as well: I am a committed Chalcedonian Christian, but too rationalist, cataphatic, and "western" for Eastern Orthodoxy, too sacramental and synergistic for Protestantism, and too, well, insufficiently totalizingly Marian for Catholicism. I am a wanderer in the wilderness, or taking refuge in "the hallway," in the words of C.S. Lewis, as from a storm prepared to blow away the house built upon sand.
Hah very dramatic but that’s okay I’m a weird Orthodox guy too. There’s plenty of room for us in the Church imo.
More options
Context Copy link
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link