Posted on 06/11/2005 7:27:43 AM PDT by sionnsar
Ten years ago or so I dreamed that I was an Orthodox priest. If you had asked me even three years ago what if I would become if I ever decided to leave the Episcopal Church, I would have replied “Eastern Orthodox.” Yet today I find myself becoming what I truly never seriously considered until the past two years.
Why did I not choose to become Orthodox? Who but God can answer? All such matters are a mystery, a mystery between the mystery of the human heart and the mystery of the Holy Trinity. Rational analysis takes one only so far. All I really know is that during the past two years, as I intently studied both Orthodoxy and Catholicism, I found myself increasingly drawn, against my will and desire, and certainly to my amazement, to Catholicism.
I love the liturgy and sacramental life of the Orthodox Church. It speaks to the depths of my heart. I long to pray the Divine Liturgy and be formed by its music, poetry, beaity, and ritual.
I love the integration of theology, dogma, spirituality, and asceticism within Orthodoxy. There is a wholeness to Orthodox experience that is compelling, powerful, and attractive on many different levels. This wholeness refuses any bifurcation between mind and heart and invites the believer into deeper reconciliation in Christ by the Spirit. This wholeness is something that Western Christians particularly need, as we confront and battle the corrosive powers of Western modernity and secularism.
I love the reverence and devotion Orthodoxy gives to the saints and church fathers, who are experienced in the Church as living witnesses to the gospel of Christ Jesus. I love the icons.
And I love the theological writings of many Orthodox writers, especially Alexander Schmemann and Georges Florovsky. For all these reasons and for many more, it would have been oh so very easy for me to become Orthodox.
But two features in particular gave me pause.
First, I am troubled by Orthodoxy’s “Easternness.” The coherence and power of Orthodoxy is partially achieved by excluding the Western tradition from its spiritual and theological life. One is hard-pressed to find an Orthodox writer who speaks highly of the Western Church, of her saints, ascetics, and theologians, of her manifold contributions to Christian religion and Western civilization. According to Orthodox consensus, Western Christianity went off the tracks somewhere along the way and must now be judged as a heresy. Understandably, Eastern Christianity considers itself the touchstone and standard by which the Western tradition is to be judged.
To put it simply, Orthodoxy has no real place for St Augustine. He is commemorated as a saint, but the bulk of his theological work is rejected. The noted scholar, Fr John Romanides, has been particularly extreme. I raised my concern about Orthodoxy and the West a year ago in my blog article Bad, bad Augustine. In that article I cited one of the few Orthodox scholars, David B. Hart, who has been willing to address Orthodox caricature of Western theologians:
The most damaging consequence, however, of Orthodoxy’s twentieth-century pilgrimage ad fontes—and this is no small irony, given the ecumenical possibilities that opened up all along the way—has been an increase in the intensity of Eastern theology’s anti-Western polemic. Or, rather, an increase in the confidence with which such polemic is uttered. Nor is this only a problem for ecumenism: the anti-Western passion (or, frankly, paranoia) of Lossky and his followers has on occasion led to rather severe distortions of Eastern theology. More to the point here, though, it has made intelligent interpretations of Western Christian theology (which are so very necessary) apparently almost impossible for Orthodox thinkers. Neo-patristic Orthodox scholarship has usually gone hand in hand with some of the most excruciatingly inaccurate treatments of Western theologians that one could imagine—which, quite apart form the harm they do to the collective acuity of Orthodox Christians, can become a source of considerable embarrassment when they fall into the hands of Western scholars who actually know something of the figures that Orthodox scholars choose to caluminiate. When one repairs to modern Orthodox texts, one is almost certain to encounter some wild mischaracterization of one or another Western author; and four figures enjoy a special eminence in Orthodox polemics: Augustine, Anselm, Thomas Aquinas, and John of the Cross.
Ironically, the various contributions by Perry Robinson and Daniel Jones, here on Pontifications and elsewhere, have heightened my concern. Both have sought, in various ways, to demonstrate that Western theology is incompatible with the catholic faith. While I have neither the training nor wit to follow many of their arguments, I am convinced that their project is wrong. Both presume that one can know the catholic faith independent of ecclesial commitment and formation. If one insists, for example, that St Maximos the Confessor, read through a post-schism Eastern lens, is our authoritative guide to a proper reading of the sixth Ecumenical Council, then of course Augustinian Catholicism will come off looking badly, despite the fact that Maximos was himself a great supporter of the prerogatives of Rome and despite the fact that Rome was instrumental in the defeat of monotheletism. Yet Catholicism embraces both Augustine and Maximos as saints, even though it is clear that Maximos has had minimal influence upon Western reflection, at least until very recently. Clearly Rome did not, and does not, understand the dogmatic decrees of III Constantinople as contradicting Western christological and trinitarian commitments. As much as I respect Perry and Daniel and am grateful for both their erudition and civility and their stimulating articles on these matters, it seems to me that their conclusions are more determined by their theological and ecclesial starting points than by “neutral” scholarship. And one thing I do know: there is always a brighter guy somewhere who will contest one’s favorite thesis.
Neither Orthodoxy nor Catholicism, in my judgment, can be conclusively identified as the one and true Church by these kinds of rational arguments, as interesting and important as they may be in themselves. Arguments and reasons must be presented and considered as we seek to make the necessary choice between Rome and Constantinople, yet ultimately we are still confronted by mystery and the decision and risk of faith.
If the catholicity of Orthodoxy can only be purchased by the practical expulsion of Augustine and Aquinas, then, at least in my own mind, Orthodoxy’s claim to be the one and true Church is seriously undermined. A truly catholic Church will and must include St Augustine and St Maximos the Confessor, St Gregory Palamas and St Thomas Aquinas. A truly catholic Church will keep these great theologians in conversation with each other, and their differences and disagreements will invite the Church to a deeper and more comprehensive understanding of the divine mysteries. To set one against the other is not catholic, but partisan.
Second, I am troubled by the absence of a final court of appeal in controversies of faith and morals. We Anglicans are now witnessing first-hand the disintegration of a world-wide communion partially because of the absence of a divinely instituted organ of central authority. In the first millenium the Church employed the Ecumenical Council to serve as this final authority; but for the past thirteen centuries Orthodoxy has been unable to convene such a council. Is it a matter of logistics, or is the matter perhaps more serious, a question of constitutional impotence? Or has God simply protected the Orthodox from serious church-dividing heresies during this time, thereby temporarily obviating the need for such a council? Regardless, it seems to me that if Orthodoxy truly is the one Church of Jesus Christ in the exclusive sense it claims to be, then not only would it be confident in its power and authority to convene an Ecumenical Council, but it would have done so by now.
Yet as Orthodoxy begins to seriously engage the worldview and values of modernity (and post-modernity), the need for a final tribunal will perhaps become more evident. Consider just one example—contraception. It used to be the case that all Orthodox theologians would have roundly denounced most (all?) forms of contraception. But over the past twenty years or so, we have seen a growing diversity on this issue amongst Orthodox thinkers. Some state that this is really a private matter that needs to be decided between the believer and his parish priest. Clearly this privatization of the issue accords with modern sensibilities; but I am fearful of the consequences. Given the absence of a final court of appeal, does Orthodoxy have any choice but to simply accept diversity on many of the burning ethical questions now confronting us? Can Orthodoxy speak authoritatively to any of them?
For the past two years I have struggled to discern whether to remain an Anglican (in some form or another) or to embrace either Orthodoxy or Catholicism. Both Orthodoxy and Catholicism make mutually exclusive claims to be the one and true Church of Jesus Christ. We are confronted by a stark either/or choice. An Anglican is tempted to retreat to a branch theory of the Church, and on that basis make a decision on which tradition appeals to him most; but both Orthodoxy and Catholicism emphatically reject all such branch theories. There is only one visible Church. To become either Orthodox or Catholic means accepting the claim of the respective communion to ecclesial exclusivity. How do we rightly judge between them?
One thing we cannot do. We cannot pretend that we can assume a neutral vantage point. Oh how much easier things would be for all of us if God would call us on our telephones right now and tell us what to do!
The Pope convenes the College of Cardinals in emergency session. “I’ve got some good news and some bad news,” he says. “The good news is this: I just received a phone call from God!” Everyone cheers. “But here’s the bad news: God lives in Salt Lake City.”
I cannot see the Church from God’s perspective. I am faced with a choice. Good arguments can be presented for both Orthodoxy and Catholicism; none appear to be absolutely decisive and coercive. Moreoever, considerations that seem important to me are probably irrelevant to the large majority of people. “The Church is a house with a hundred gates,” wrote Chesterton; “and no two men enter at exactly the same angle.” Finally, I can only rely upon my reason, my intuitions, my feelings, my faith, under the grace and mercy of God. May God forgive me if I have chosen wrongly.
(cont)
Bothered me too. This is not how I understand the Original sin -- as inheritance of corruption and concupiscence, but not an actual sin of the will.
It need only trouble those who cannot tell the difference between (a) mortal sin itself and (b) the state of being in mortal sin.
(a) Is something that we do.
(b) Is something that we are in.
I'm not aware of "do" meaning "are in". Rather "do" can cause "are in", or "are in" may be pre-existant based on external circumstances.
The "state of mortal sin" is the state of being of a human living estranged from God and lacking divine grace.
"Mortal sin" is an actual sin of the will which cuts off the soul from life with God and destroys the divine grace within the soul.
To commit a mortal sin causes the state of mortal sin, but original sin also causes us to be born in the state of mortal sin without any delict of the will upon our own part.
Why is this so hard to understand?
"But sanctify the Lord Christ in your hearts, being ready always to satisfy every one that asketh you a reason of that hope which is in you." (1 St. Peter 3.15)
Come the reformation and revolution, it was the simple peasants and country-folk of the West Country in the Pilgrimage of Grace, or the Vendee in the uprising for God and King, who clearly knew their faith was under attack, and undertook not only to defend it, but to articulate their demands to power for its restoration and protection. If these simple peasants, so ridiculed by Enlightenment types, were able to follow this verse, surely highly educated Americans and Europeans should be able to do so.
Second, in the Eastern Christian tradition as a whole, but among some Western theologians as well but mostly Anglicans, insists that our language about God is always inadequate. Statements of doctrine are merely "pointers" to an unknowable, incomprehensibe, ineffable God. So authoritative statements just don't carry the same weight in those churches as they do in the Latin church. Nailing down some point of doctrine isn't the point to begin with, so you might as well use thumb tacks instead.
Yes, but doctrine about Original Sin, the Sacraments, the Church, Authority in the Church, etc. are not directly discussing the unknowable nature of God.
Quite simply, an inability to agree, for example, that Councils are infallible of themselves, or instead only from the consent of the Church, has little to do with an inability to comprehend the nature of God.
Similarly, and unwillingness to acknowledge the necessity of Baptism, so clearly stated both in Scripture and by all the Fathers, has little connection to the nature of God.
I could understand such reservations regarding Triadology or Christology, but not at all for Ecclesiology or Sacramentology.
Actually, it became clearer from your posts subsequent to the one I was responding to. I was under the simplistic impression that only actual sin can be mortal sin.
But this begs another question, -- how does this state of mortal sin relate to invincible ignorance? Aren't the newborn (along with righteous pagans, etc.) destined to heaven through the operation of invincible ignorance?
Ignorance excuses from actual sin, but does not create virtue or impart grace. Someone laboring under the effects of original sin is hardly a fit subject for salvation, no matter how worthy a life they live.
Since eternal life is the knowledge of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (cf. St. John 17.3), it is difficult to understand how ignorance of the same destines people to eternal communion with the Most Holy Trinity.
At this very troublesome and difficult time, the hidden designs of God have conducted Our poor strength to the office of Supreme Pastor, to rule the entire flock of Christ. The enemy has, indeed long been prowling about the fold and attacking it with such subtle cunning that now, more than ever before, the prediction of the Apostle to the elders of the Church of Ephesus seems to be verified: "I know that ... fierce wolves will get in among you, and will not spare the flock." (Acts 20:29). Those who still are zealous for the glory of God are seeking the causes and reason for this decline in religion. Coming to a different explanation, each points out, according to his own view, a different plan for the protection and restoration of the kingdom of God on earth. But it seems to Us, Venerable Brethren, that while we should not overlook other considerations, We are forced to agree with those who hold that the chief cause of the present indifference and, as it were, infirmity of soul, and the serious evils that result from it, is to be found above all in ignorance of things divine. This is fully in accord with what God Himself declared through the Prophet Osee: "And there is no knowledge of God in the land. Cursing and lying and killing and theft and adultery have overflowed: and blood hath touched blood. Thereafter shall the land mourn, and everyone that dwelleth in it shall languish." (Osee 4:1-3)
It is common complaint, unfortunately too well founded, that there are large numbers of Christians in our own time who are entirely ignorant of those truths necessary for salvation. And when we mention Christians, We refer not only to the masses or to those in the lower walks of life -- for these find some excuse for their ignorance in the fact that the demands of their harsh employers hardly leave them time to take care of themselves or of their dear ones -- but We refer to those especially who do not lack culture or talents and, indeed, are possessed of abundant knowledge regarding things of the world but live rashly and imprudently with regard to religion. It is hard to find words to describe how profound is the hardness in which they are engulfed and, what is most deplorable of all, how tranquilly they repose there. They rarely give thought to God, the Supreme Author and Ruler of all things, or to the teachings of the faith of Christ. They know nothing of the Incarnation of the Word of God, nothing of the perfect restoration of the human race which He accomplished. Grace, the greatest of the helps for attaining eternal things, the Holy Sacrifice and the Sacraments by which we obtain grace, are entirely unknown to them. They have no conception of the malice and baseness of sin; hence they show no anxiety to avoid sin or to renounce it. And so they arrive at life's end in such a condition that, lest all hope of salvation be lost, the priest is obliged to give in the last few moments of life a summary teaching of religion, a time which should be devoted to stimulating the soul to greater love for God. And even this as too often happens only when the dying man is not so sinfully ignorant as to look upon the ministration of the priest as useless, and then calmly faces the fearful passage to eternity without making his peace with God. And so Our Predecessor, Benedict XIV, had just cause to write: "We declare that a great number of those who are condemned to eternal punishment suffer that everlasting calamity because of ignorance of those mysteries of faith which must be known and believed in order to be numbered among the elect." (Instit., 27:18)
St. Pius X, Encyclical Acerbo Nimis, 1-2, April 15, 1905
Similarly, St. Thomas Aquinas explains:
Whether Unbelief Is a Sin?
We proceed thus to the First Article: It would seem that unbelief is not a sin ...
Obj. 2. Further, No one sins in that which he cannot avoid, since every sin is voluntary. Now it is not in a man's power to avoid unbelief, for he cannot avoid it unless he have faith, because the Apostle says (Romans 10:14): "How shall they believe in Him, of Whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?" Therefore unbelief does not seem to be a sin ...
On the contrary, Vice is opposed to virtue. Now faith is a virtue, and unbelief is opposed to it. Therefore unbelief is a sin.
I answer that, Unbelief may be taken in two ways; first, by way of pure negation, so that a man be called an unbeliever, merely because he has not the faith. Secondly, unbelief may be taken by way of opposition to the faith; in which sense a man refuses to hear the faith, or despises it ... it is this that completes the notion of unbelief, and it is in this sense that unbelief is a sin.
If, however, we take it by way of pure negation, as we find it in those who have not heard anything about the faith, it bears the character, not of sin, but of punishment, because suchlike ignorance of divine things is a result of the sin of our first parents. If such unbelievers are damned, it is on account of other sins, which cannot be taken away without faith, but not on account of their sin of unbelief. Hence Our Lord said (John 15:22): "If I had not come, and spoken to them, they would not have sin;" which Augustine expounds (Tractates on the Gospel of John, 89) as referring to "the sin whereby they believed not in Christ."
Reply Obj.2. This argument takes unbelief as denoting a simple negation.
Summa Theologica, Part II-II, Q. 10, Art. 1Whether Unbelief Is the Greatest of Sins?
We proceed thus to the Third Article: It would seem that unbelief is not the greatest of sins ...
I answer that, Every sin consists formally in aversion from God (Part I-II, Q. 71, Art. 6; Q. 73, Art. 3). Hence the more a sin severs man from God, the graver it is. Now man is more than ever separated from God by unbelief, because he has not even true knowledge of God: and by false knowledge of God, man does not approach Him, but is severed from Him. Nor is it possible for one who has a false opinion of God, to know Him in any way at all, because the object of the opinion is not God. Therefore it is clear that the sin of unbelief is greater than any sin that occurs in the perversion of morals as we shall state further on (Q. 20, Art. 3; Q. 34, Art. 2, ad 2; Q. 39, Art. 2; ad 3) ...
Summa Theologica, Part II-II, Q. 10, Art. 3
Or as St. Augustine very succinctly put it:
"I do not exhort you to have faith, but love. For you cannot love without faith; I mean the love of God and neighbor. Whence can it come without faith? How can he love God, who does not believe in God?"
Sermon 90.8
Styles of conversation change over the centuries. E.g. Anglicans don't talk much about religion at dinner parties anymore, whereas 100 years ago they did. It's considered impolite today and as a result they aren't good anymore at articulating their religious belief. It's not a question of intelligence but rather of the practice of religous language and ideas.
Yes, but doctrine about Original Sin, the Sacraments, the Church, Authority in the Church, etc. are not directly discussing the unknowable nature of God.
It's not a matter of discussing the unknowable nature of God. That is taken for granted. It is a matter of openning the discussion to endless comment.
Quite simply, an inability to agree, for example, that Councils are infallible of themselves, or instead only from the consent of the Church
Any serious discussion of ideas will be based on controvery. This is what makes for a good conversation. People of goodwill do have reasonable disagreements with each other. Religion isn't going to be an exception.
But do these two quotes, from St. Pius X and St. Thomas Aquinas refer to invincible ignorance of the babies and unbaptized and unevangelized? It seems that both refer to Christians of weak or lost faith.
I thought in previous posts you were implying a sort of Palegian solution of self effort. It seems now that was not your intention. Thanks for the clarification.
God forbid!
"13 Q: Do parents sin, then, who, through negligence, allow their children to die without Baptism, or who defer it?
A: Yes, fathers and mothers who, through negligence, allow their children to die without Baptism sin grievously, because they deprive their children of eternal life; and they also sin grievously by putting off Baptism for a long time, because they expose them to danger of dying without having received it." (St Pius X Catechism, Holy Baptism)
Someone who is entirely ignorant of the truths of Faith is no more a Christian than is an outright Pagan.
Little children have not the ability to intellectually believe in an articulable way. Therefore, neither are they invincibly ignorant, since ignorance of one thing implies belief in another.
In any case, ignorance is not salvific. It does not impart grace, and it does not forgive sins.
"For you and those in your church, authority does seem to be needed."
Of course it is. It is a distinguishing mark of the doctrine of Jesus Christ:
Matt 7,28 "And it came to pass when Jesus had fully ended these words, the people were in admiration at his doctrine. 29 For he was teaching them as one having authority, and not as the scribes and Pharisees."
"Second, in the Eastern Christian tradition as a whole, but among some Western theologians as well but mostly Anglicans, insists that our language about God is always inadequate. Statements of doctrine are merely "pointers" to an unknowable, incomprehensibe, ineffable God."
I agree that there must be an apophatic element to our language about God especially relating to his substance and nature, however, sometimes this can be used as an excuse for sloppy thinking and a lack of intellectual rigor.
Christianity is primarily about Revelation rather than theological speculation, and to the extent that we believe that Revelation is trustworthy and true, then we must be able to make a lot of positive statements about God because He Himself has revealed them to us.
It is often said that God may be considered unknowable etc., however, is our faith in the Incarnation so shallow that we doubt our Lord's words to St. Philip?:
Jn 14,7 "If you had known me, you would without doubt have known my Father also: and from henceforth you shall know him, and you have seen him. 8 Philip saith to him: Lord, shew us the Father, and it is enough for us. 9 Jesus saith to him: Have I been so long a time with you; and have you not known me? Philip, he that seeth me seeth the Father also. How sayest thou, Shew us the Father? 10 Do you not believe, that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I speak to you, I speak not of myself. But the Father who abideth in me, he doth the works."
"Aren't the newborn (along with righteous pagans, etc.) destined to heaven through the operation of invincible ignorance?"
Be very careful here! There is a movement abroad in the Church to turn Invincible Ignorance into the Eighth Sacrament!!! ;)
I.I. only negates the culpability of certain sins against Faith, Hope and Charity. It does not remit either original sin or actual sin, and it is certainly not a means of grace.
If that were so, the Church should give up her mission of evangelisation forthwith and rely on everyone being saved by I.I. for the good of the greater number of souls.
That is true. On the other hand, pedantry is a poor substitue for faith.
It is often said that God may be considered unknowable etc., however, is our faith in the Incarnation so shallow that we doubt our Lord's words to St. Philip?:
An apophatic theology doesn't marginalize the Incarnation. The veneration of icons, based solely on the divine economy of the Incarnation of the Son of God, is an integral part of Orthodoxy. But Orthodoxy makes a distinction between the essence of God, unknowable and ineffable, and the uncreated energies or attributes of God, the face that God turns to His creation in the Incarnation and revelation. That is the province of kataphatic theology and you can make quite positive statements about God, keeping in mind that these are "icons" pointing beyond themselves to the unknowable.
No. This is Augustinianism, or at least tends toward it, as far as I can tell from your short statement.
I will post another thread on this this afternoon, OK? It is a separate and very complextopic. I'll bump the people concerned when I am done.
I agree that invincible ignorance is overused when it is applied to men fully capable of informing themselves on the Church's teaching. It nevertheless remains an essential part of the doctrine of salvation.
No limbo?
Of course Invincible Ignorance is not salvific, or sacramental. Its effect is in reducing the gravity of sin, in some circumstances to nil. That is all.
The dogmatic teaching of the Roman Church, repeated at least three times, is that those who die in original sin only are deprived of the vision of God, based on the authority of St. John 3.5, and St. Matthew 5.8. This state of existence is properly called damnation. ... Theologians, if consulted, would tell you that Limbo may essentially be thought of as an antechamber to hell, rather as the Narthex is the Portico to the Nave of a Church, and can give you all manner of speculation of a more or less useful nature as to what the state of such souls will be.
And pray tell, what is the problem with that? "We have always held Augustine a man of holy memory ... We recall him as having once been a man of such great knowledge that even by my predecessors in the past he was always accounted among the best teachers" (Pope St. Celestine I, Letter "Apostolici Verba Praecepti", To the Bishops of the Gauls, May 15, 431 AD).
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.