The Ochlophobist on Ravenna

Fr, Maximos,

The accusation of crypto-Protestantism is perhaps the most oft used in the context of these sorts of debates. Our friend Arturo, not long ago while still a Continuum Anglican, used it against those such as Mike Liccione who he now rhetorically supports. We all know that there have been Orthodox saints whose positions on these matters were stronger than my own. Perhaps they are also Protestant?

The insinuation is that I am some sort of American-style fundamentalist because I am against ecumenism. Then there is the lament that I am some sort of “spiritual ecumenist” because I expect clarity on the matters at hand. This is out of context. The cult of the vague to which I refer to is a particular rhetorical malady found in many circles of contemporary discourse – it is used to reconcile opposing factions in any number of ways. It is worth noting that when applied to ecumenical affairs the rhetoric I am speaking against is very much the same whether in the WCC, or among ECUSA and ELCA gatherings, and, indeed, in most Orthodox/Catholic dialogues. I sometimes also refer to this as human resources-speak. It is language which is meant to bring about an end the means of which are not directly spoken to, nor is the precise end in question, though that precise end is very much in the mind of those who use said language (even when opposing sides used the same language and envision different ends), thus it is manipulative. Now, the terms are more egregious in some of the broader ecumenical gatherings, to be sure, but the style of the rhetoric, and the apparent intent behind it, remains the same.

My post is one written in the context of debate with Latin Rite Catholics, who argue, consistently, that Vat I can never be dogmatically undone. It seems to me that they are correct in reference to what we call the RCC today. The Roman Catholic acceptance of Vat I is not akin, say, to that of the Orthodox bishops’ signing on to Florence, or the iconoclast Councils – these met overt active hostility in the Church (for the sake of argument, let us say, what was perceived to be the Church) essentially from the beginning until the end of such falsehoods. This is not the case with Vat I. Vat I has been fully implemented into the Roman magisterium. Vat. II and numerous Papal texts have established it as dogma within the RCC. And this is what I mean when I say that the RCC will end if Vat I is deemed to be not dogma, the whole dogmatic construct of modern Catholicism falls at that point.

You write:

“But being in error does not of itself remove one from the Church. Persisting in error in the face of a universal condemnation of the unerring Church probably does; but that is not the case with respect to Catholics.”

“Both sides will have to bring into their askesis not only their error..”

You seem to be suggesting, and correct me if I am wrong, that the universal unerring Church can only be found when both the full Christian East and Christian West agree on a given matter -- is that your estimation? Where, exactly, is to be found the universal condemnation of the unerring Church? Is it in the RCC, is it in the EOC, is it in both when they happen to agree, or is it invisible yet known to those who practice the ascesis of ecumenism? Both the RCC and the EOC claim to be the Church universal. It is the teaching of the RCC that when Pope (and those bishops in communion with him) condemn a thing, it is condemned. I ask you this, according to the logic above - if the Orthodox (hypothetically) in council were to anathematize Vat I would it be possible for you to give full assent to it. Or better yet, conversely, since the whole of the Church is required to condemn a thing for it probably to be an error, if the Roman Church condemns a thing and the Orthodox Church affirms it, could you accept with full assurance that such a thing is indeed an error? For if you do not it seems you do not assent to Vat I.

But if you assent to Vat I, and believe that the Pope and those bishops of various rites without the Orthodox can condemn a matter, then when you speak of error above, you mean, with regard to doctrinal error, only the error of the Orthodox, if it is doctrinal error you speak of. For if you assent to Vat I, in what manner can Rome finally err in doctrine? Thus back to the point of my post – Rome can relent (repent, if you will) of matters of praxis, but it is Orthodox who must repent of not teaching the full Gospel. Of course there is a distance between Truth, Christ, and what is stated in the Councils. “All things may be said of God, but nothing is worthily said of God…” as St. Augustine states. But the distance between, say, an Ecumenical Council and the Truth of Christ is not a distance of error. Orthodox believe that Vat I is error. What it lacks is not merely the distance between human reckonings and Truth.

I believe that I am the first of sinners. I believe that my great sin has inflicted great discord in the cosmos, and that where division is seen it is because of my own sin. I believe that through my own repentance the universe may be restored to order, and others around me may be saved. Yes, the world matters, my mother, who is not Orthodox and whom I love with every fiber of my being is not Orthodox. My coworkers who I love are not Orthodox. One of my very closest friends is a devout, conservative Roman Catholic, and I love him. I very much affirm that which is “for the life of the world.” I have not suggested that I am winning and these I love, or even my opponents are losing. We are not speaking of a win or lose game here. Trust me, I believe that Orthodox will lose most worldly battles. Loss is the way for us. I do not think of Vat I and think, “we win” with regard to that, I simply think that it is not Orthodox.

You state:

“what if both have to lose something in order to attain what is lacking?”

Please be assured that Orthodox know that this is commonly the take of Eastern Catholics. In a sense, I have no problem affirming that Orthodox lack virtually everything. I, following a holy priest, compare her to the widow of Nain. She lacks a great many things, and there are many apparent blemishes put on her by those within, myself first and foremost. But the Son has risen, and she does not lack truth. Perhaps there is a distance between human words and Truth, and thus the Councils do not provide a final say on all things, but there are the Mysteries, and there is the Liturgy, and the right patterns of ascesis offered. Christ is in our midst! If a given parish or person lacks Him in some manner it is not the fault of the Church herself. If however, there is the suggestion that both Orthodoxy and Catholicism are in error with regard to their teaching, then one is at that point not only a branch theorist, but one may as well include Protestants in the mix as well.

I, as an Orthodox, believe that Roman Catholicism formally teaches error. I believe that Orthodoxy does not formally teach error. Thus I believe that Rome should repent of doctrinal error. If and when this happens, I will consider it a conversion, and not a repentance.

The need for ascesis in order to reunite churches is what happened with the MP and ROCOR, in which case both sides were Orthodox to begin with. When one is faced with a situation wherein Orthodoxy encounters groups who are not Orthodox, then I in no way deny that Orthodox must repent, continually, of what each member has done to bring discord to the world, me the first, and also of what we have done to make it more difficult for others to accept Orthodox truth. That ascesis does not involve repenting of theological error. It does not involve repenting for the Church having made St. Mark of Ephesus a saint, and singing what we sing in regard to him, and so on and so forth. For Roman Catholicism, there must be a turning around, a repentance, of dogma, along with any other repentance which may be needed. Since I believe that the RCC is now what it is on the basis of said dogmas, then I believe the RCC needs to convert to Orthodoxy, not merely reunite. This is seen as horribly arrogant on the part of many RCs, but these same generally would have no problem with Orthodox saying as much with regard to Anglicans, or Lutherans, or Unitarians. How is it arrogant for me to believe that Catholics must convert to Orthodoxy, but not arrogant for me to believe that Anglicans must convert to Orthodoxy? It is only arrogant on the basis of your understanding of who you are, not on the basis of my understanding of who you are, for from my understanding, to suggest that Catholics must convert to Orthodoxy in order to be Churched is not more arrogant than to suggest as much from an Anglican.

My problem with the mutual radical ascesis language Mike used was that it implies that we, together, journey to some new ecclesial space (which, I suppose, is possible when one assents to the development of dogma in the manner in which Mike does). But this is not really the case. Cosmetically the praxis of Catholicism might change to accommodate such a thing, but the formal ecclesiology would not change. That is my problem with the language as used. If you suggest that both sides would “lose” some of their current dogmatic commitments in such an ascesis, then you are not engaging in flattery. You are in that case, however, embracing an understanding of Church that is not an Orthodox one, at least it would seem such if I understand you correctly.

I thank you for your consideration of my post. Please pray for me.

Fr. Maximos and Fr. Gregory,

One thing I would like to ask the both of you is what form or forms this radical ascesis that we must go through in order for reunion to occur is to take? It could be that I am completely misunderstanding what it is you refer to. Other than the traditional forms of ascesis in Orthodoxy, what forms should be added? Are you proposing that Orthodox bishops insert specific prayers for reunion into the Liturgy, or have special reunion Molebans composed, or that bishops exhort their faithful to fast, pray, and give alms for reunion? Do dialogue-events of the ecumenical industry count as a serious form of ascesis, is this an aspect of the ascetical path to reunion of which you speak? Is it more along the lines of personal ascetical acts? Please explain.

Fr. Gregory,

I have been a Roman Catholic. I worked for 5 1/2 years for the man who was the first Catholic layman to receive his doctorate from the Catholic faculty at Tubingen, and who was perhaps the world's expert on Catholic modernist, himself a devout, conservative, Dorothy Day loving Catholic. I have studied at a Roman Catholic graduate school of theology. I had a job which took me to Catholic monastic and diocesan institutions across North America. I have been to Merton's Our Lady of Gethsemene at least a dozen times. On my blog, I have written appreciations of various RC and Western Christian practices and persons any number of times.

What you have just stated, I have read, with almost the exact same language, from Anglican liberal theologian Alan Jones. He uses the word kenosis with regard to ecumenism in almost the exact manner you do. There is a spirit here which seems committed to stressing, again and again, what we have "in common" and what is good in the other, while being very hesitant to define areas of disagreement. This approach seems much more in tune with popular sentiments than with the manner in which the fathers or the apostles spoke concerning those who held doctrinal error. Kenosis is not polite assent to bureaucratic reaches for commonality. Yes kenosis means that I esteem others higher than myself, but it is not a state of nonsensical anarchy. I do not view a seriel child molester as one who is better at caring for my children than I do myself. I do not consider Unitarians better at articulating Trinitarian thought than I do Eastern Orthodox. Given your approach, it would seem that Sts. Photius and Mark of Ephesus did not act out of sanctity when speaking and writing as they did concerning Roman Catholicism, and thus I should not sing to them as I do in the various Orthodox liturgical texts which praise them for those very words and actions.

Thank you for your response.

Fr. Gregory,

Thank you.

I offered my cv in order to show that it is at least possible that I "understand the other side of the question from within."

I should not have in any way suggested that your counsel for empathy was not correct. I must have misunderstood you. I apologize. I agree that there is a need for us to empathize with all, most especially those we disagree with.

If I might say one word in defence of this post, it would be that it comes in the context of several years of debate with Roman Catholics, several of whom are my friends. We argue with some vigor, but we also care for each other and pray for each other daily. I consider Mike Liccione, my chief RC interlocutor, to be a friend. We correspond, and we keep each other in prayer daily. These are things which are not evident in the post in question, but which are a part of the life of the context of the broader debate.