Change of mind

Clark Carlton is an anti-Catholic polemicist. I would be extremely chary of his claims.

The idea that dogma is "tragic" strikes me as essentially unCatholic. It is the Holy Spirit who guides the Church into "all truth"...and if the Holy Spirit wants a dogma to be formally defined, He makes sure it gets defined! (Sometimes He even ratifies the definition afterward, so to speak, e.g., by having the Theotokos appear to a 14-year-old peasant girl in order to tell her, "I am the Immaculate Conception." )

The Holy Spirit does not act capriciously or arbitrarily. As Newman put it, "no doctrine is defined till it is violated." When God sees that the faithful need certainty re a controverted (and important) point, He provides such certainty via the Church's Teaching Authority. Simple as that.

And, of course, the defined dogma is nothing new. It is part of the Depositum Fidei, of the "faith once handed down to the saints." The dogmatic definition merely underscores and clarifies the ancient truth. As we all know, the Church does not "invent" new doctrines.

Moreover, I would argue, dogma does not exhaust the mystery of our Faith. Dogmatic definitions should pose no threat whatsoever to the more apophatically inclined among us. The Church could define dogmas till doomsday (not that she will do so, of course!)...and she would not even begin to scratch the surface of the infinite mystery of God.

IMHO, the claim that dogmatic definitions reduce the mystery is a canard. Once we start to appreciate the infinitude of God's mystery and the puniness of our human minds, we clearly see that no dogma, no matter how crystalline, could ever make the slightest dent in that infinite mystery. So...what's the problem?

Ckarkson's extreme apophasis reminds me of Franky Schaeffer's, expressed in a now infamous LA Times piece (wherein Schaeffer memorably called Pope Benedict a fundamentalist). When apophasis is taken this far, IMHO, we are in danger of crossing the line into a sort of Zen Christianity, in which one cannot say anything about anything. Such a Christianity would have been incomprehensible to the early Christians who argued so fiercely over a single iota.

God bless,

Diane

Dear Hieromonk Maximos:

Father, bless!

But...is it really "unWestern" to seek clarity re controverted teachings? The ancient Easterners who fought so hard for ultra-precise Christological definitions clearly did not think so. One can scarcely get more cataphatic than when one fights to the death over a single iota.

I really think this apophatic East-versus-cataphatic West thing is more myth than reality. It provides lots of grist for the mills of Frederica Matthewes-Greene and her fellow West-bashers. But does it really reflect the historical record? I would very respectfully suggest that the apophaticism of the East has been somewhat exaggerated, to put it mildly; while the alleged "linear thinking," legalism, dogmatism, and hyper-ratiocination of the West have been even more exaggerated. IOW, polemics have played a larger role here than has an honest assessment of the historical data. Just my 2 cents', for what they're worth...which ain't much, of course.

Sometimes people need answers, and sometimes God sees fit to provide them. I guess I do not see the "tragedy" here...nor the problem inherent in the human need for answers. After all, Our Lord said the Holy Spirit would lead us into all truth, not into all murk. And He encouraged us to seek and ask!

And what is wrong with the dogmatic definitions we Catholics have, anyway? Would you argue that they take us too far away from apophasis? I personally do not see this. Does the Immaculate Conception exhaust the mystery of Our Lady's role, any more than "Mother of God" does? And, with all due respect to Annie (up above), why shouldn't we have the IC as well as the Theotokos definitions? They complement each other, and they both foster devotion. So, again, where is the problem?

I guess I simply do not see why this is such a big huge deal. In my experience and that of countless other Catholics (including many Eastern Catholics), dogmas such as the IC (for instance) greatly enrich our devotional lives. We cannot imagine Catholicism without them. In the immortal words of the old Cole Porter song, "No, no, they can't take that away from me."

God bless,

Diane

Hieromonk Maximos, what a very gracious reply to my peevish little post! Thank you.

I do largely agree. I guess I get defensive on this issue, because usually--not in this case, but usually--when I'm being told how much more mystical-schmystical the East is, the implication is, "And that makes Orthodoxy spiritually superior, neener-neener." This tends to get my Irish up.

Obviously, as you say, differences do exist. And the features characterizing the West cannot be dismissed as entirely negative, either, as you also rightly observe. (Easterners may deride Western rationalism, but they're more than willing to benefit from the advances made by modern Western medicine, for example.)

Moreover, as you also suggest, there is an apophatic tradition in the West as well, so the divide is not as geographically clear-cut as some folks imply.

I guess I agree with you more than I disagree. I'm still chary of Carlton, though.

BTW, when the subject of "Western legalism" comes up, I'm always tempted to observe that one of the most famous legal codes ever composed was the work of a Byzantine emperor. But then, I'm always told, "Yes, but he was a latinized Byzantine emperor." I guess there's an answer to everything.

Diane, addicted to emoticons