Orthodoxy and Parallel Monologues

I don’t know how many of our subscribers are Orthodox Christians. But from those who are, we get frequent complaints that insufficient attention is paid that very large part of the Christian world. So here goes. The occasion is a remarkable address by Professor John H. Erickson of St. Vladimir Orthodox Seminary in Crestwood, New York, delivered at the National Workshop on Christian Unity, which met last year in San Diego, California. Erickson reports that in 1990 he opined, “The Berlin Wall fell in 1989 and with it, communism. With it also fell ecumenism as we have known it.”

The last decade, he believes, has only reinforced that judgment. The Orthodox churches of Georgia and Bulgaria have withdrawn from the World Council of Churches (WCC), and other churches are under pressure to withdraw. In 1997 at Georgetown University, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew spoke of Orthodoxy as being “ontologically different” from other churches. This is sometimes referred to as the “friends, brothers, heretics” speech. Patriarch Alexei II of Moscow remains adamantly opposed to the Pope’s visiting Russia, and his other visits have met with a very mixed reception. At St. Catherine’s Monastery on Mount Sinai joint prayer was carefully avoided; in Jerusalem Patriarch Diodorus made a point of noting that he had not prayed with the Pope. (But note that, as of this writing, there are signals that the Russian Church may be weakening in its opposition to a papal visit.)

Is it the case, as Samuel (Clash of Civilizations) Huntington has said, that ecumenism was a Cold War phenomenon that has given way to the stark division between the “West” and the “Orthodox” civilization of Russia and the Balkans? Erickson writes: “Some alarming questions arise. If the Orthodox mental world is so radically different from that of the West, what implications does this have for ecumenical relations, whether globally or here in North America? What implications does this have for people like me, who call themselves Orthodox Christians and belong to Orthodox churches, but who certainly are not only in the West but also in many respects of the West? From personal experience, I can tell you that the authenticity of our Orthodoxy increasingly is being questioned, both from abroad and here as well. And another, more far–reaching question also arises: Is ecumenism—like liberal democracy and for that matter communism—in fact simply a product of the West, one of its many ideologies, whose universal claims and aspirations will inevitably fail in the emerging world order, now that Western hegemony can no longer be taken for granted, now that the legitimating myths of the Enlightenment have lost their persuasive power?”

Already in the nineteenth century, some Orthodox reached out ecumenically, mainly to Anglicans and Old Catholics. Orthodox theologians were significantly involved in Faith and Order during the interwar period. When the WCC was formed in 1948, the Soviet regime required Orthodox leaders to condemn it as part of a Western plot, but that changed dramatically in 1961. “At the New Delhi assembly of the WCC in 1961, the Orthodox churches of Eastern Europe joined the WCC en masse. Their membership was advantageous for all concerned. In various ways Orthodox membership made the WCC itself more ‘ecumenical,’ more global, more sympathetic to the diversity of situations in which Christians struggle in their witness to the gospel. At the same time, membership gave the Orthodox churches in question an opportunity to be seen in the West and gain contacts in the West, thus also raising their status back home. And the price seemed negligible. The WCC itself from the 1960s onward was becoming ever more concerned about issues like racism, liberation, and economic justice; it was especially sensitive to the strivings of churches and peoples of what was then the ‘third world.’ The Orthodox churches of Eastern Europe could express concern about such issues with little risk of running afoul of the Communist authorities back home—and indeed they might benefit by contributing in this way to building up a good image for the Socialist states, and possibly even a cadre of fellow travelers.”

At Vatican Council II, the Catholic Church became ecumenically assertive; soon mutual anathemas between East and West were consigned to the memory hole and a “dialogue of love” was proclaimed. With both Catholics and the WCC, the Orthodox produced promising ecumenical statements. “But on the Orthodox side at least,” says Erickson, “this ecumenism remained at the level of professional theologians and high Church dignitaries. For the faithful in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, ecumenism brought little more than the occasional photo of the Pope greeting a prominent hierarch, or of a long row of Orthodox bishops, all with their black klobuks and jeweled panaghias and crosses, seated prominently in a WCC assembly.”

Moreover, the dialogue of love had to cope with what the Orthodox call “uniatism.” “Uniate” or “Eastern Catholic” refers, of course, to those Christians in the East who retained their liturgy and other practices while entering into full communion with Rome, beginning with the Union of Brest in 1596. “Uniate” is a term that is eschewed in polite ecumenical discourse today, but the Orthodox have a long history of resentment against what they view as Catholic poachers on their ecclesiastical turf. Erickson: “Given this troubled history, it is understandable why the Orthodox churches have viewed ‘uniatism’ as a sign of Catholic hostility towards them, as an attempt to subvert them by dividing brother from brother, and as implicit denial of their own ecclesial status. And of course it is also understandable why Eastern Catholics have resented the Orthodox for their complacent acquiescence in the suppression of the Eastern Catholic churches following World War II.” He continues: “The term ‘uniate’ itself, once used with pride in the Roman communion, had long since come to be considered as pejorative. ‘Eastern Rite Catholic’ also was no longer in vogue because it might suggest that the Catholics in question differed from Latins only in the externals of worship. The council affirmed rather that Eastern Catholics constituted churches, whose vocation was to provide a bridge to the separated churches of the East. But if, as subsequent dialogue was emphasizing, the Orthodox churches themselves are truly ‘sister churches,’ already nearly at the point of full communion with the Roman Church, what rationale—apart from purely pastoral concern for Christians who might otherwise feel alienated and possibly betrayed—can there be for the continued existence of such ‘bridge churches’?”

Animus is exacerbated by the demand of Eastern Catholics that their property, expropriated by Stalin and given to the Orthodox, be returned. The demand that all property be returned (restitutio in integrum) is, says Erickson, unreasonable, at least in some cases, because of demographic and other changes over the years. Then there is the matter of “proselytism.” Not only Catholics but armies of Protestant evangelizers, mainly backed by the religious groups in the U.S., are, claim the Orthodox, failing to recognize that there is an indigenous Christianity in Russia and Eastern Europe. In what Erickson calls “ecumenism as we knew it,” the Orthodox acknowledged that, while Orthodoxy actualizes the one true Church, there was a possibility of dialogue with other churches aiming at greater unity and fuller communion. Erickson writes: “But not all Orthodox would agree with these assumptions. Some would take Orthodox claims to be the one true Church in an exclusive rather than an inclusive sense, so that outside the canonical limits of the Orthodox Church as we currently perceive them there is simply undifferentiated darkness, in which the Pope is no better than a witch doctor. How are we to evaluate these conflicting views? The exclusive view today claims to represent true Orthodoxy, traditional Orthodoxy. In fact—as I could argue at greater length—this ‘traditionalist’ view is a relatively recent phenomenon, basically an eighteenth–century reaction to the equally exclusive claims advanced by the Roman Catholic Church in that period. Nevertheless this view has gained wide currency over the last decade.”

So who is pushing this very untraditional traditionalism? “What is important to note is that those most committed to the ‘traditionalism’ they preach are not pious old ethnics and émigrés but more often zealous converts to Orthodoxy. Like Western converts to Buddhism and other more or less exotic religions (New Age, Native American . . . ), these converts are attracted by their new faith’s spirituality, which seems so unlike what the West today has to offer. They also are especially quick to adopt those elements which they deem most distinctive, most anti–Western, about their new faith—not just prayer ropes and headcoverings but also an exclusive, sectarian view of the Church that in fact is quite at odds with historic Orthodoxy. Superficially their message, proclaimed on numerous websites, may seem to be at one with that of the established, ‘canonical’ Orthodox churches—at one with some of the statements of Patriarch Bartholomew or the Russian Orthodox Church, which, as we have seen, have been critical of the WCC and the Vatican. But in fact their message is different, even radically different. Their message, in my opinion, is more a product of the late–modern or postmodern West than an expression of historic Eastern Christianity. According to them, any participation in or involvement with the WCC or similar bodies represents a capitulation to the panheresy of ecumenism; Orthodoxy’s claim to be the one true Church is relativized, a ‘branch theory’ of the Church is tacitly accepted, and church canons against prayer with heretics are repeatedly violated in practice and in principle.”

During centuries of polemics, Rome tended to present itself as “the Universal Church,” and the only thing for others to do was to come home to Rome. In an earlier time, East and West recognized one another as “sister churches,” and that understanding, especially on the part of Rome, is making a comeback, most notably with the pontificate of John Paul II. Erickson writes: “Significantly, the expression ‘sister church’ did not cease to be used for the Western Church even after full eucharistic communion ended. For example, in 1948 Patriarch Alexei I of Moscow—certainly no great friend of the Roman Catholic Church—nevertheless could refer to it as a ‘sister church.’ What is remarkable about the use of the expression since 1963, when Patriarch Athenagoras I and Pope Paul VI reintroduced it into modern Orthodox–Roman Catholic dialogue, is not that the Orthodox should use it with reference to the Roman Church but that Rome should use it with reference to the Orthodox churches. While the precise significance and practical implications of the expression have not been fully explored—it is not, after all, a technical term in canon law—it must be acknowledged that its use by modern popes represents a remarkable breakthrough in Orthodox–Catholic relations.”

It is precisely that breakthrough that alarms the untraditional traditionalists in Orthodoxy. Many of them, Erickson notes, are drawing their polemical ammunition from apocalyptic Protestant “Bible prophecy” sources on the Internet and elsewhere. Traditionalist Orthodox employ these sources to depict everything from the New World Order and the use of contraceptives and implanted microchips to the papal “Antichrist” as signs of the final catastrophe from which their version of Orthodoxy is the only refuge. This accent on the Orthodox difference, Erickson says, has undermined ecumenism “as we knew it.” “The modern self–confidence which gave rise to the ecumenical movement in the first place—confidence in the possibility of reaching agreement and achieving unity through dialogue, common reflection, and common action—has given way to postmodern self–doubt. We are in the midst of a radical decentering in which many new voices are clamoring for recognition—and on the religious scene this means not only traditionalists and fundamentalists but also contextual theologies of many sorts. In principle this decentering should help us appreciate diversity and facilitate dialogue. But this does not seem to be happening. Instead we seem to be entering the age of the parallel monologue. What counts are my own people, my own tradition, my own group, my own orientation. Those formed by other contexts may be tolerated or even honored with faint words of praise, but they are, as it were, ‘ontologically different’ (to quote Patriarch Bartholomew’s Georgetown speech once again). They are, for me, spiritually empty. No solid basis exists for dialogue, communication, and communion.”

What has happened to Orthodoxy and ecumenism is, of course, taking place within a cultural milieu in which all differences are fundamental, and fundamental differences are assumed to be insurmountable. Erickson reports, “Recently I was speaking to a Serbian Orthodox student from Bosnia Herzegovina. He kept insisting, ‘You here in the West just do not understand our situation.’ He really was saying, ‘You cannot understand our situation—so uniquely painful is it. You—in your very different situation—are incapable of understanding our situation.’ These days many people are saying much the same thing: women, gays, people of color, the poor, those marginalized in various ways, and even white males of the West whose position in the world now seems threatened. We are all tempted to say, ‘I am situated within a unique interpretive community. I have no need for dialogue with you or anyone else. Indeed, no basis exists for dialogue with you.’”

Erickson’s conclusion offers nought for our comfort: “We may still be convinced of the desirability of Christian unity. We may even be convinced of the need for Christian unity. But how convinced are we of the possibility of Christian unity? How many of us really believe that in Christ, crucified and risen, it is possible for us to overcome division, to understand each other’s situation, to make each other’s pain and joy our own? These are the some of the questions that face each of us involved in the ecumenical movement today.”

Erickson’s essay is remarkably candid and more than bracing. It goes a long way to explain the nonresponse, indeed hostility, of the Russian Church and others to the unprecedented initiatives of John Paul II. In the 1995 encyclical Ut Unum Sint (That They May be One), the Pope invited others to join in rethinking the function of the papal office itself, suggesting that reconciliation is more important than questions of jurisdiction. As one Orthodox theologian told me, “We’ve been waiting a thousand years for a pope to say what he is saying. Now this Pope has said it, and we act as though nothing has happened.”

It is safe to say that the dearest hope of this Pope for his pontificate has been ecclesial reconciliation with the Orthodox, so that, as he has often put it, “the Church may again breathe with both lungs, East and West.” It is also safe to say that such reconciliation will not happen on his watch. That is very sad. We must hope, however, that the initiatives taken since the Second Vatican Council (and there have also been constructive initiatives from the Orthodox side), combined with a revival of an authentically traditional ecclesiology among the Orthodox, will in the years to come move us beyond “ecumenism as we have known it,” and beyond “parallel monologues,” to the fulfillment of Our Lord’s prayer, Ut unum sint. For all the reasons that Prof. Erickson discusses, that seems at present to be a wan hope. But then, we Christians were long ago given our instructions, and warned that we would have to walk by faith and not by sight.

Hello all. Forgive me if this excerpt from Neuhaus’s regular First Things column, “The Public Square”, has been posted already.

I’m hoping to find out if there is any interest in traditionalist Christians – especially fellow Orthodox, Catholics, and Anglicans – having a regular discussion about issues related to our respective faiths. In light of the soul-searching that many Roman Catholics are now doing because of the current scandal, I thought that a cross-confessional dialogue might be a welcome relief.

We Orthodox are also preparing to celebrate the Sunday of Orthodoxy, when all Orthodox across jurisdictional boundaries come together for worship.

Lastly, as some of you know, I’ve recently given up on participation in the Neverending Story thread – but still would like the chance to talk about faith.

Please bump this thread to any and all you think might be interested. Thanks, and Christ Bless!

Full disclosure, I'm an Orthodox Christian currently attending a parish of the Antiochian Archdiocese of North America. I converted 8 years ago, after being raised agnostic. I'd say that Neuhaus has some accurate observations about the difficulties of American Orthodox, who have to straddle West and East. I'm also very familiar with the phenomenon he describes, of zealous converts who reject the notion of any kind of contact with Catholicism because of their desire to defend the purity of Orthodox spirituality. I'm somewhat conflicted on the topic myself, and seeing as we are having more Roman Catholic visitors to our Orthodox parishes I expect I'll be challenged to work it out!

Christ Bless.

But keeping the static down from non-traditionalist Christians - about 25,000 varieties - will be the challenge to stay focused on the point.

Agreed. I was sharing the story of my conversion recently, and was struck again by the way that Orthodoxy for me cut through the confusion of the denominational landscape. As a "spiritual seeker" with little knowledge of Christianity, it would have been so easy to be overwhelmed - sensory overload, like the mall on Thanksgiving weekend. Thank God, I was led to a particular book - a biography of an American Orthodox monk, also a convert - with the subtitle "A Pathfinder to the Heart of Ancient Christianity." That phrase was a lifeline, and from there God reeled me in.

I know you live with ecumenism every day right in your own home, but I'm surprised that folks often seem to come at these questions from the angle of "where are you wrong?" rather than "where are you right?" I suppose its because we all like a good fight, but in other cross-denominational religious threads on FR I've noticed that a person will always respond to the 10% of another person's position that they disagree with rather than the 90% that they do.

I'm as guilty of it as anyone, I suppose. I had focused on what Catholics did wrong - especially since V2. I'd heard horror stories about how the altars had been gutted, and how the celebrants were facing the congregation, and how the old mystery had gone. Then I actually visited a Catholic Church in my town and found it rather nice. Decent plainchant from the celebrant, reverence from the congregation.

I think one thing that scares Orthodox about Roman Catholics is the unpredictability within the American Catholic Church. Seems like the innovators have made it possible for there to be a wide variety - both in type and quality - to your services and to your role in the community.

but I'm surprised that folks often seem to come at these questions from the angle of "where are you wrong?" rather than "where are you right?" I suppose its because we all like a good fight, but in other cross-denominational religious threads on FR I've noticed that a person will always respond to the 10% of another person's position that they disagree with rather than the 90% that they do.

I was, of course, kidding. But I already knew "where are you right" (wherever you agree with me of course) :-)

I rather think I would enjoy the exchange without the constant barage of "you really worship the pagan goddess Mary... I know you do you liar.....blah blah blah blah. I have found it exceptionaly hard to respond in a charitable way, and I am normally extremely slow to anger.

Anyway, did you notice that you jumped ship at just the right time? (does this make you a "rat"?) It looks like they are going to take their football and go home - that is, shut down the (formerly) Neverending Thread?

Although unity is nice to think about, I can't see it happening.

I don't expect to see full communion within my lifetime, barring completely unforeseen circumstances. But I do think it may be possible for our Churches to work more closely together in America. We do have an exceptional opportunity here, since nationality unites us rather than adds to our divisions. A unified American Orthodox Church would make the dialogue easier, but I don't expect to see that in my lifetime either!

The issue of the authority of the Pope, by itself, would not stop the thing, IMO.

I don't know. I'm not terribly up-to-speed on the dialogues that have taken place, but I tend to think that the issue of papal authority is much more of a problem than any issue connected to spirituality.

I would think that most Orthodox could come to terms in a workable way with "the primacy of Peter," but I don't think that they could ever accept that as any kind of administrative authority.

Neither would that, "proceeds from the Father and the Son," issue.

I think that those Orthodox who have a working grasp of theology, though, would need to work this out clearly. We are very focused on the role of the Holy Spirit, and the filioque is seen as leading to a diminishment, at least in understanding, of the HS. But yes, I'd think we could work it out as we've worked out certain issues with the Monophysites.

I refer to (1) contraception and (2) re-marriage after divorce.

Yes, this would be a challenge. However, I don't think that the positions of traditionalist Orthodox and Catholic laity on these issues are likely far apart.

Thanks for replying to my ping! God Bless.

Agreed. The conversation was not leading me to a good place, spiritually. I would like the chance to discuss Mary, and try to gain a better appreciation for the Catholic sense of her place. But on that thread, I felt that I didn't want to instead just lock arms with the Catholics and defend her from slander.

Obviously, a big difference between the fundamentalists and the "sacramentalists" is our belief that the saints are alive and well and as much vehicles of God's purposes now as the holy angels. But I'm at a loss as to how to begin explaining the concept to fundamentalists.

I noticed! Pretty strange, actually. The thread has been in bad shape for a couple of weeks, people's hearts seemed to not be in it as much. Maybe that's why it turned to such harsh sniping again. I believe that God was leading me to back away, and if I hadn't made a public commitment to it I would likely have let myself get drawn back in.

A couple of nights ago, I was about to get drawn in to what could have turned in to a snarky exchange with Iowegian over the Orthodox understanding of deification. I think you were in on the exchange. Just as I was about to reply, we lost our power. All of a sudden, everything in the house went completely black except for the candle that was burning in front of our icons. It was a total shock, and helped me see that a moment earlier as I was about to post I hadn't been in a good place spiritually. The next morning, I called it quits.

thanks for the post and the bump. I've learned more about the Orthodox on Free Republic than anywhere else.

Please forgive my limited knowledge; here's my current view: If I disregard the political history and power struggles (a big disregard I know), I think of the RCC and Orthodox as pretty much the same church - with differences in emphasis (as well as cultures of course).

I agree that the Orthodox is more Eastern, meaning more contemplative and non-conceptual, but that's a generalization and I've found quite a bit of the contemplative tradition even in the Old South.

IMHO, I would be confortable in either, but the RCC is the one that allows me the most community here.

thanks again and best wishes…

The issue of the authority of the Pope, by itself, would not stop the thing, IMO. If it weren't for certain other difficulties, I think the Orthodox could be talked into it.

Seems like this is an issue up for grabs, to a degree? Neuhaus' article shocked me with the following:

In the 1995 encyclical Ut Unum Sint (That They May be One), the Pope invited others to join in rethinking the function of the papal office itself, suggesting that reconciliation is more important than questions of jurisdiction. As one Orthodox theologian told me, “We’ve been waiting a thousand years for a pope to say what he is saying. Now this Pope has said it, and we act as though nothing has happened.”
It is safe to say that the dearest hope of this Pope for his pontificate has been ecclesial reconciliation with the Orthodox, so that, as he has often put it, “the Church may again breathe with both lungs, East and West.” It is also safe to say that such reconciliation will not happen on his watch. That is very sad.

IMVHO, this is an issue worth exploring - I am going to read Ut Unum Sint (in English ha ha) and try to discern just how JPII views bending on jurisdiction... Again, IMHO, the "filioque" issue doesn't seem to me to be a doctrinal division or disagreement, but as I understand it, the Eastern Church was outraged that the Western Church inserted the words without consulting the rest of the Patriarchs. Then we'd have to deal with the sacking of Constantinople... I guess this is still a very sore point with the East.

I think the schism is arguably the saddest chapter in Christianity because our Churches agree on so much more than we disagree on, unlike most of the Protestant denominations (excepting Anglicanism).

I think one of the strengths that the Catholics have had is the Pontiff's role - funny, because it is probably the most controversial issue of Catholicism to outsiders. I view it as a blessing - JP11 is a recognized world leader and articulate spokesperson - when he talks, people listen (well, except the AmChurch!) - it seems to me that a religion is more likely to be fragmented within itself without a centralized authority. Just like the secular world would be without a President or Head of State, CEO, etc.

Well, I'm a bit off topic here, but thanks for the *ping* Wordsmith, I'm game!

I show up as Eastern Orthodox even though I'm conservative Southern Baptist. Don't know how much I'll add and will NOT try to argue, but mainly curious and might ask a question or two if it's okay.

Hi billbears, glad to hear from you. I suppose as good a question as any is, "what's a traditionalist Christian?" There's things I'd like to learn about Southern Baptists. The only kind of Baptist that I believe I've had any exchanges with here are "IFB's." I've heard a little about the conflict right now over some kind of Southern Baptist statement of faith. So it seems like the Southern Baptists are struggling with some of the questions of "how does the Church function as an organization, rather than just as an independent parish?" This obviously is a big topic of conversation among Orthodox, Catholics, Anglicans and such.

The big division between Orthodox and Baptist theology, I'd venture, is over the Sacraments. Orthodoxy is very much a "sacramental faith." Seems like lots of folks don't believe there's any common ground between OSAS and Sacramental Christianity, but I'm not so sure. We're likely just talking past each other a lot of the time. I've been surprised at how much "sola scriptura" can be reconciled with Orthodox theology once people actually start defining it.

However, once the Catholic Church takes a position on any issue of faith or morals, it never reverses itself.

In looking at how our Churches actually function in the world, it seems like one of the biggest differences is that the Orthodox have been much more reticent in committing themselves to particular positions. For example, we've never had any kind of doctrine of transubstantiation, preferring instead to consider it a mystery and let that be that.

I think something similar is at work in faith and morals. I'm not up to speed on the Orthodox position on divorce. (Don-o, any thoughts?) I do know that second marriages, when they're performed, are much more penitential in character, much less celebratory. In acknowledgement of the fact that this isn't a great way to go. How different is this for marriages after annulment in Catholicism?

As far as contraception goes, I hadn't realized that the RC position was absolute. I've just started looking into Orthodox bioethics, with which this is connected, and there's a lot to discuss there.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.