« Two Kids Enough in Philippines? | Main | Good Guys Winning, Liberals Losing »
August 31, 2007
Real Bishops
Patrick Henry Reardon's "The Arius Factor" in the current issue of Touchstone (available in print!), came to mind this morning when I read about one of the saints commemorated today, August 31, in the calendars of both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Church: Paulinus, bishop of Trier.
Paulinus met Athanasius who was in exile in Trier for his support of orthodoxy in the mid-fourth century. At the synod of Arles (353) Paulinus not only defended Athanasius but strongly denounced Arianism. The emperor Constantius II apparently favored the more "reasonable" Arian doctrine and sought to silence orthodox critics. So he had Paulinus shipped off to Phrygia, where he died.
Paulinus was mentored by Maximinus, his predecessor as bishop of Trier. Maximinus had offered the exiled Athanasius refuge in 336, and the same to Paul, patriarch of Constantinople when the emperor booted him into exile.
I propose that no bishops be consecrated in any church unless they have studied and inwardly digested the full ecclesiastical history of the fourth century, beginning with the mass persecutions, then on to Nicaea, the Arian-inspired exiles and persecutions, and beyond. They should be rigorously quizzed on the names, the dates, the documents, the accounts of the martyrs, and then sign a form (in triplicate, of course!) saying they will faithfully walk in the steps of these orthodox bishops (and saints), and defend, to their last breath, that which was handed on from the apostles, and if not, then get a real job.
Posted by James M. Kushiner at 09:51 AM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c5ee953ef00e54ee9ebed8834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Real Bishops:
» RealBishops from The Country Parson
Good suggestion from James Kushiner at Mere Comments.
... [Read More]
Tracked on Aug 31, 2007 11:33:23 AM
Comments
If I'm not mistaken, current Roman Catholic doctrine is that the bishops teaching together, teach the unaltered truth. So it would have been binding upon the Christians of the day to be Arians, and believe Arian doctrine.
In spite of Biblical disagreement with that doctrine.
Posted by: labrialumn | Aug 31, 2007 11:39:00 AM
But they were divided in their teaching...
Posted by: Gene Godbold | Aug 31, 2007 11:52:52 AM
>>But they were divided in their teaching...<<<
Aside from which, the Church never really acted as mechanistically as Labrialumn implies. While the bishops have the charism of teaching the true faith, the ultimate responsibility for defending the true faith lies with the entire Body of Christ, and throughout Church history, when some, or even all of the bishops have gone astray (and even Bishops of Rome were known to do so), it was the people, often led by monastics, who rallied to preserve Holy Tradition.
Thus, Maximos the Confessor, in opposing the monothelite heresy, was told that all the bishops were in agreement, and he had excommunicated himself. No, he replied, it is they who have excommunicated themselves, for the Truth cannot be determined by a consensus, and as long as he, Maximos (a layman) upheld the truth, then the Church still survived, in the person of Maximos,
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Aug 31, 2007 12:10:09 PM
Jim Kushiner for Pope!
Posted by: Dcn. Michael D. Harmon | Aug 31, 2007 5:13:53 PM
Axios, axios, axios!
And, having been elected President by acclaimation on another thread, I promise to attend his installation in person, not sending the Vice President or Secretary of State in my place.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Aug 31, 2007 5:17:05 PM
Isn't that a dangerous intermingling of Church and State, though? Clearly you should act as though he doesn't exist from the moment the mitre hits his head.
Posted by: Nick Milne | Aug 31, 2007 5:40:03 PM
Stuart, I don't doubt I do not yet understand the intricacies involved, but don't you prove my point?
Wasn't Maximos relying upon his "personal interpretation"? He certainly wasn't trusting the Magisterium.
Posted by: labrialumn | Aug 31, 2007 6:06:08 PM
"Wasn't Maximos relying upon his "personal interpretation"? He certainly wasn't trusting the Magisterium."
Something's rumbling on the Richter scale. Is it a small tremor? Or is this a big one?
D'oh!
Posted by: Truth Unites... and Divides | Aug 31, 2007 6:22:47 PM
TUAD,
This looks like one which you and I can set back and enjoy! ;-)
Posted by: GL | Aug 31, 2007 6:26:10 PM
Maximos the (Westminster) Confessor! ;-)
Posted by: Bill R | Aug 31, 2007 6:29:59 PM
>>>Wasn't Maximos relying upon his "personal interpretation"? He certainly wasn't trusting the Magisterium.<<<
"Magisterium" is a thing, not a person or persons. Magisterium is the teaching authority of the Church. Among Roman Catholics since the Reformation, the term has come informally to mean "the bishops", or "the Pope", or most recently, "the bishops united with the Pope". But to use the term in a seventh century Greek context is anachronistic. There was no "magisterium" as it is used today. There was Holy Tradition, which everyone knew and understood because it was absorbed organically by all through the catechesis of the liturgy. There were, of course, disputed areas wherein the Church had not yet made up its mind, and the issue of the nature of Christ was one of them, which is why we had to have three more Ecumenical Councils to settle the issue after Chalcedon.
In areas where the Tradition is firmly established, it is generally conceded that the bishops have the authority to teach, and the people have the obligation to defend. In those areas where the Tradition is not established, but issues are in dispute, bishops may offer opinion, but until their opinion is received by all--a messy process that can and did take decades--then each person is obliged to follow his conscience after prayerful discernment. I have cited in similar threads the statement of the Eastern Catholic catechetical handbook, "Shown to Be Holy: An Introduction to Eastern Christian Moral Thought":
******
It is precisely episodes such as this [the Arian controversy] that led to the teaching that there is no certain ground by which we can automatically discern God's guidance in situations which have not been the subect of revelation. We can seek His will paryerfully, consult the Church and its Tradition, and still be wrong. On the other hand, we may find ourselves opposed to the highest Church authority and be right. Thus, the monk St. Maximos the Confessor opposed the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Constantinople almost single-handedly during the sixth century monothelite controversy. He rejected his own Church's bishops, saying, "When I see the Church of Constantinople as it was formerly, then I will enter into communion with it without any exhortations of men. But while there are heretical temptations in her, and while heretics are her bishops, no word or deed will ever convince me to enter into communion with it" (Anastasius of Rome, "The Life of Our Holy Father, Maximos the Confessor"). Within a short time, the Church reversed itself, and accepted Maximos' teaching.
And so, after a person has deeply and seriously consulted the teaching ministry given to the Church, and reflected prayerfully on its directon as well as the leadings of his own heart, that person must follow his conscience, even if it runs contrary to the established understanding of the Church. We must be aware of our proneness to delusion, put our trust in God's hidden words, and then act. We may be wrong, and may even commit a transgression, but we will not sin, provided that our conclsions be founded on solid reflection and payerful maturity. We must know, however, that simply following whim or conveniene is not the same as following an informed conscience.
*****
I have also pointed out at various times that truth is self-authenticating and requires no extrinsic validation. Truth exists and speaks to the soul through the Holy Spirit, which is no respecter of persons. The Spirit may speak through the bishop, or it may speak through the layman. At the time of Athanasius and the Council of Nicaea, the highest authority was not wielded by the bishops, but rather by the confessors, those Christians, whether deacon, priest, bishop or layman, who had been tortured under the persecution and borne witness to his faith by his blood. At the time of Maximos, who became a confessor by virtue of his torture at the hands of the monothelite emperor, that same moral authority and witness resides with the monastics, who accepted the white martyrdom of acesis. It can be argued that at one time the man with the most influence within the Church was St. Symeon Stylites, a hermit who sat on top of a 60-foot pillar for more than thirty years. Bishops were known to make pilgrimages to seek his counsel. And the one time he came down, it was to see the Emperor himself, to castigate him for some error. Abashed, the Emperor took Symeon's advice and repented. Later still, in Russia, this kind of witness was borne by those called "Holy Fools", who either were or feigned insanity in order to point up the follies and foibles of the powerful, both secular and ecclesiastic. These men and women were deeply revered, and their persons were practically sacrosanct.
There is a critical scene in the opera Boris Godunov that illustrates this. A holy fool comes to Moscow, and is tormented by some small boys, who tease him and take his last kopek. Tsar Boris enters, and the fool approaches him. "The boys took my kopek" the tells the Tsar. "Have them killed, as you killed the tsarevich Dmitri". Guilt-stricken, Boris gives the fool a kopek, and says, "Pray for me, Father". But the fool replies, "One cannot pray for Tsar Herod. Bogorodice [the Theotokos] will not permit it". Apalled, Boris returns to his palace and begins his descent into madness and death.
The point then, is this: it is not the "magisterium" which is the supreme authority of the Church, but rather the total Tradition of the Church itself, of which those with magisterium--which is to say all members of the Church according to their gifts and stature--have an obligation to teach correctly and to defend against error, regardless of the origin of that error.
It does not have anything to do with personal interpretation, but understanding of and within the Tradition.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Aug 31, 2007 6:51:18 PM
Stuart, thank you for your helpful clarification.
There is something that you wrote which I shall excerpt so that you can help me understand the difference, if any, between what you wrote and what Francesca wrote:
"And so, after a person has deeply and seriously consulted the teaching ministry given to the Church, and reflected prayerfully on its directon as well as the leadings of his own heart, that person must follow his conscience, even if it runs contrary to the established understanding of the Church. We must be aware of our proneness to delusion, put our trust in God's hidden words, and then act. We may be wrong, and may even commit a transgression, but we will not sin, provided that our conclsions be founded on solid reflection and payerful maturity. We must know, however, that simply following whim or conveniene is not the same as following an informed conscience."
Francesca wrote the following over several comments on another thread:
"Possibly, but having studied primacy of conscience and the not-so-unbroken teachings of the Church, I'm confident that there are many areas in which we can disagree and still act in good conscience.
And only God determines whether a conscience is or is not correctly formed. And, yes, I am an admirer of Hans Kung.
I've studied Humanae Vitae, the Catechism, RCC teachings on infallibility, and the theology of conscience, all in some depth (as I'm sure many of us here have done,) and I don't believe that use of non-arbortifacient contraception is sinful.
I do not recall any contribution you made to past discussions on theology of conscience within the RCC on Mere Comments (it's quite possible that I may have missed some posts.) Back in April and May, iirc, I defended my stance in some detail and elaborated on: the differences between discerned and revealed truth, integrity to sincerely held belief, and evolving and changing teachings within the RCC. RCC teachings on theology of conscience are complex, nuanced, and have not been taught consistently throughout the Church's history. You are welcome to go back and review the arguments I made earlier."
Stuart, I'm seeing significant similarity and overlap between your post and Francesca's. Would you agree and support Francesca's understanding, more or less? Or is there a differentiated gap of significance between your explication of St. Maximos the Confessor and what Francesca is arguing?
As of now, I'm not seeing any gap.
Posted by: Truth Unites...and Divides | Sep 1, 2007 12:22:37 AM
“It does not have anything to do with personal interpretation, but understanding of and within the Tradition.”
At the time of Maximos, however, there was no generally accepted understanding of the monothelite question within the Tradition. Therefore, as you also state:
“In those areas where the Tradition is not established, but issues are in dispute, bishops may offer opinion, but until their opinion is received by all--a messy process that can and did take decades--then each person is obliged to follow his conscience after prayerful discernment.”
I believe the Reformers did this, if one accepts McGrath’s thesis in “Iustitia Dei” that at the time of the Reformation there was no one generally accepted formulation of the doctrine of justification. Today I believe a majority of Catholic scholars would find Luther’s formulation an acceptable alternative for Catholics to hold (which is the conclusion of the first ECT statement).
Posted by: Bill R | Sep 1, 2007 12:49:31 AM
>>>As of now, I'm not seeing any gap.<<<
Francesca's idea of "primacy of conscience" is not constarained by the notion of an overarching "Holy Tradition" within which conscience is iinformed. I noted that where Tradition is settled it generally is binding; at the very least, a person should presume that Tradition in such matters be given every benefit of the doubt, hence the threshold for overturning it is very high.
Second, the passage I cited notes our "proneness to delusion", which is anothr way of saying our mistaking the voice of our own desires for the voice of conscience. Bishop Kallistos as a boy was find of the BBC radio program "The Goon Show". He recounts this skit to make the point:
The phone rings. One a man picks it up, and says, loudly, into the receiver, "Hello, hello! Who is speaking, please?" The voice on the other end says, "It is you who are speaking". The man says, "Oh. I thought I recognized the voice". And he hangs up.
Kyr Kallistos points out that in order to hear the voice of the Holy Spirit dwelling within, in order to discern God's will, the first thing we have to do is be silent and listen. Many people refuse to do this, but instead take the attitude towards God, "When I want his opinion, I'll give it to him".
Francesca consistently errs in two ways: first, she confuses the voice of her own desires--or more properly, the voice of the Zeitgeist she has so utterly absorbed--for the voice of the Holy Spirit; second, she does not allow God the silence He requires in order to speak to her through the indwelling of the Spirit.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Sep 1, 2007 3:41:55 AM
>>>At the time of Maximos, however, there was no generally accepted understanding of the monothelite question within the Tradition.<<<
This is very complex, because to answer you need to know the entire history of the Christological disputes, which would (and has) taken up many books. Two in particular are informative, both by John Meyendorff: "Christ in Eastern Christian Thought" and "Imperial Unity". Both point out that there was indeed a Christological consensus within the Church, one that was held almost from the beginning: that Christ was both true God and true man, at one and the same time, without admixture or confusion. The problem was describing this paradoxical and ineffable mystery adequately in words; i.e., to find a description that expressed the true doctrine. Underlying all these attempts was the apparently opposing beliefs in the impassibility of God and that "that which was not assumed cannot be saved". From Cyril of Alexandria, through the Council of Chalcedon, and down to the time of Patriarch Sergeius, Pope Honorius and the Emperor Heraclius, the problem was finding a way of expressing this that did not stress Christ's humanity at the expense of his divinity and vice versa.
The monoenergist and monothelite positions were both attempt to find an acceptable compromise between mono- (or mia-) physite and diphysite positions, one that would reconcile the apparent differences between Cyrillian and Chalcedonian Christology. For a time, monothelitism won universal acceptance, even within the Church of Rome (which is why Pope Honorius I was condemned by the Sixth Ecumenical Council, much to the chagrin of later infalliblists).
But the mere fact that for one moment the vast majority of Church leaders accepted a teaching did not automatically make that teaching consistent with Tradition. Maximos (and a handful of others, mostly monastics) rejected the teaching as being inconsistent with what Tradition had already revealed. And they stuck to their guns. And eventually, truth being self-authenticating, the Body of Christ came to realize this and rejected monothelitism. That is, the Tradition already encapsulated the truth, in an apophatic manner: it knew, no matter what else, that Christ did not and could not have but one "energy" or "will" and still be able to complete the sanctification of human nature. It took another Ecumenical Council to complete the synthesis, but even without that, Tradition, the Church's rule of faith, already laid out boundaries of what Christ was not.
>>>I believe the Reformers did this, if one accepts McGrath’s thesis in “Iustitia Dei” that at the time of the Reformation there was no one generally accepted formulation of the doctrine of justification.<<<
I would disagree on that. There was, in fact, a patristic consensus on justification, from which the Western Church had gradually migrated, and it was with this that Luther and the Reformers disagreed. But their formulation of justification by faith "alone" was itself inconsistent with the patristic Tradition, and it is significant that the Orthodox Church rejected both the Latin and the Protestant positions.
Regarding Iustitia Dei, one has to remember that to reach that agreement, both the Roman Cathoic and the Lutheran positions had to evolve and converge--a process that required some four centuries of interaction as well as exposure to other Traditions. This convergence, ironically, is not towards some via media between Catholics and Lutherans, but towards the first millennium patristic consensus. That this can be done within the framework of Luther's writings on justification is possible only because both sides are willing to interpret Luther in a way that makes this possible. Not everyone agreed with that interpretation, which is why the LCMS rejected the Agreed Statement (as did Roman Catholic traditionalist bodies such as the SSPX). It must be admitted that polemicists on both sides did much to exaggerate the differences between Catholics and Lutherans, but remember that Luther himself was one of those polemicists. Still, from the time of Trent onward, the Roman Catholic Church has constantly been reevaluating and reforming its position on justification, and it is likely that had Luther been familiar with, e.g., the understanding of justification at the time of Vatican II, he probably would not have rejected the Catholic Church (at least not on that ground, since justification was just one of his grievances).
McGrath errs (I say with fear and trembling) in viewing the issue of justification only through the prism of Western Christian theology, which is dominated by the Reformation controversies in the same manner that Eastern Christianity is dominated by the Great Schism. Eastern Christians often see Catholic-Protestant disputes as something of an intra-family argument, in which both sides share the same basic assumptions and vocabulary, a long-running argument in which both sides have agreed on the key questions, and disagree over the answers. We, on the other hand, look at all this, and think you may not be asking the right questions.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Sep 1, 2007 4:18:04 AM
"But the fool replies, "One cannot pray for Tsar Herod. Bogorodice [the Theotokos] will not permit it". Appalled, Boris returns to his palace and begins his descent into madness and death."
Actually Stuart, Boris begins his descent before meeting the Simpleton -- cf. the "Clock Scene" in Act II.
Excellent description of Francesca's problem, by the way.
"I have also pointed out at various times that truth is self-authenticating and requires no extrinsic validation."
I'm still awaiting your further explanation of this, which I requested on a previous thread. If you mean by this simply that truth is independent of any single person (other than God), I agree. But, as I pointed out, "authenticiation" or "validation" is an act performed by a person, not a proposition, and in that sense truth cannot be self-authenticating or self-validating.
Posted by: James A. Altena | Sep 1, 2007 5:34:00 AM
>>>"I have also pointed out at various times that truth is self-authenticating and requires no extrinsic validation."<<<
This means that truth does not need to be labeled as truth by any person or persons, or by any extrinsic authority, for that matter. Something is either true or it isn't. It is true regardless of whether anybody believes it to be true. It cannot be rendered false by the refusal of anyone or everyone to believe that it is true.
Conversely, something that is not true cannot be made true simply because any given person or persons declares it to be true.
Because of this, truth is its own criterion. And because truth is written into every human heart, human beings have an innate ability to determine the truth, if only they will listen. Thus. "truth will out" (eventually), because God is truth, and we, made in His image, are drawn to it.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Sep 1, 2007 5:41:32 AM
TUAD,
On the surface, I can see how you see similarity between Stuart's and Francesca's views, but they are actually quite different. When Stuart and I have debated contraception, he attacks not the binding nature of Tradition, but its interpretation by me and others. He makes a powerful argument that the Tradition in this instance is being improperly applied to conduct to which it does not apply, partly because the Fathers had misconceived notion of conception. I disagree, but his argument is not specious and it deserves pondering. Indeed, though I have never publicly acknowledged it before, I have pondered what he wrote and it has, in fact, shaped my views. Indeed, there are aspects of his position which I have come to accept. Francesca, on the other hand, declares a right to reject a Tradition which she disagrees without denying its applicability simply because she disagrees with it. If that is not her position, then I have greatly misunderstood her.
On the primacy of conscience argument, I have a very good friend who is also a very devout Catholic and very knowledgeable of his Church's teachings who has told me that he can be a good Catholic and disagree with specific teachings of his Church, but that he cannot teach others to reject those teachings. That is, he has not just a right, but a duty in his private life to follow his conscience but that his publicly attacking those teachings creates scandal and he may not do that. Despite what Francesca may think, I have read about and discussed these issues with serious, devout Catholics for many years, while she was still a child.
Posted by: GL | Sep 1, 2007 7:40:23 AM
>I have a very good friend who is also a very devout Catholic and very knowledgeable of his Church's teachings who has told me that he can be a good Catholic and disagree with specific teachings of his Church, but that he cannot teach others to reject those teachings.
So how does he teach his children?
Posted by: David Gray | Sep 1, 2007 8:45:45 AM
"So how does he teach his children?"
I hope that he teaches them what the Church teaches, and not his own private views, for if he does teach them his own private views they are no longer private, and he is teaching heresy; and he ought in such a case to be disciplined or excommunicated.
Posted by: William Tighe | Sep 1, 2007 9:20:05 AM
"So how does he teach his children?"
I hope that he teaches them what the Church teaches, and not his own private views, for if he does teach them his own private views they are no longer private, and he is teaching heresy; and he ought in such a case to be disciplined or excommunicated.
Posted by: William Tighe | Sep 1, 2007 9:20:21 AM
"So how does he teach his children?"
I hope that he teaches them what the Church teaches, and not his own private views, for if he does teach them his own private views they are no longer private, and he is teaching heresy; and he ought in such a case to be disciplined or excommunicated.
Posted by: William Tighe | Sep 1, 2007 9:20:26 AM
"So how does he teach his children?"
I hope that he teaches them what the Church teaches, and not his own private views, for if he does teach them his own private views they are no longer private, and he is teaching heresy; and he ought in such a case to be disciplined or excommunicated.
Posted by: William Tighe | Sep 1, 2007 9:20:30 AM
"So how does he teach his children?"
I hope that he teaches them what the Church teaches, and not his own private views, for if he does teach them his own private views they are no longer private, and he is teaching heresy; and he ought in such a case to be disciplined or excommunicated.
Posted by: William Tighe | Sep 1, 2007 9:20:35 AM
"So how does he teach his children?"
I hope that he teaches them what the Church teaches, and not his own private views, for if he does teach them his own private views they are no longer private, and he is teaching heresy; and he ought in such a case to be disciplined or excommunicated.
Posted by: William Tighe | Sep 1, 2007 9:20:43 AM
"So how does he teach his children?"
I hope that he teaches them what the Church teaches, and not his own private views, for if he does teach them his own private views they are no longer private, and he is teaching heresy; and he ought in such a case to be disciplined or excommunicated.
Posted by: William Tighe | Sep 1, 2007 9:20:48 AM
"So how does he teach his children?"
I hope that he teaches them what the Church teaches, and not his own private views, for if he does teach them his own private views they are no longer private, and he is teaching heresy; and he ought in such a case to be disciplined or excommunicated.
Posted by: William Tighe | Sep 1, 2007 9:22:08 AM
o "Francesca's idea of "primacy of conscience" is not constrained by the notion of an overarching "Holy Tradition" within which conscience is informed. I noted that where Tradition is settled it generally is binding; at the very least, a person should presume that Tradition in such matters be given every benefit of the doubt, hence the threshold for overturning it is very high.
Francesca consistently errs in two ways: first, she confuses the voice of her own desires--or more properly, the voice of the Zeitgeist she has so utterly absorbed--for the voice of the Holy Spirit; second, she does not allow God the silence He requires in order to speak to her through the indwelling of the Spirit." (Stuart)
o "Francesca, on the other hand, declares a right to reject a Tradition which she disagrees without denying its applicability simply because she disagrees with it. If that is not her position, then I have greatly misunderstood her."
Dear Stuart, James, and GL,
You may all be 100% correct and spot-on in your analysis of Francesca. I truly have no way of assessing your evaluations without going back and reading many longish threads and their exchanges.
But there's something here in your responses that causes me out of curiosity to want to shift the discussion. To a slightly more abstract argument.
Suppose we substitute another name for "Francesca" in the excerpt above! It could be any other name of a Catholic. And I stated the same observation: "As of now, I am not seeing any gap."
Would you still have responded the same way? I think this is a worthy line of inquiry. In other words, are you responding to Francesca because it's Francesca, and not responding to her arguments?
Sidebar: In my own walk I endeavor to separate the person from the position they espouse (not always succeeding unfortunately!). First, I think it's the correct approach. Second, I don't want the other person's reputation, character to unduly color or influence my evaluation of the argument or point they are making. Third, I am careful to critique their statement ONLY. So that they know that I am not critiquing them personally and not judging them as a person.
Returning to the more general (idealistic?) exhortation of separating the person from their position, for polite argument's sake, suppose I substitute Dr. William Tighe's name for Francesca's name above. Would you all have responded the same way? Maybe you would have, I don't know. But the greater likelihood is that you wouldn't have responded the same way.
My observation (in the particular case) is that Francesca carries historical baggage with you. [Which may be entirely justifiable for all I know]. And perhaps what you're responding to is this past memory of your impression of her which inhibits a fresh and unjaundiced view of her current arguments. Naturally, this does not seem like a fair, balanced, and objective view of her arguments, or to her.
In the general case I am thinking that it's very challenging to separate the person from the argument. So I want to give you all the benefit of the doubt in that regards.
It's just that I have a nagging suspicion that if Stuart were to voice Francesca's opinion, then he'd get a free pass because he was Stuart! But since it's Francesca, she doesn't! Even if the same arguments and words are posed! If so, then we truly are reacting to the person alone.
Obviously, there must be tons of social science literature on the phenomenon I'm describing. I wish I was familiar with it. "Halo effect"?
Returning to Stuart's observation of Francesca's two errors... I don't see how I could properly judge (or even want to judge!) whether Francesca has confused her own desires with that of the Holy Spirit's will for her. Nor could I evaluate whether she is sufficiently silent, still, and prayerful so that God could guide her.
And with GL's critique, I am thankfully unaware of whether Francesca indeed rejects Tradition without denying its applicability.
In closing, I make my post in humility, noting a general problem, as well as a personal failing of mine to separate the person from their position and giving their position a fresh and fair hearing, which I find vexing.
Pax in Christ alone.
Posted by: Truth Unites...and Divides | Sep 1, 2007 9:26:09 AM
Note: I wrote my post in between tasks... so I did not know the inestimable William Tighe was posting as I was writing!
Posted by: Truth Unites...and Divides | Sep 1, 2007 9:30:27 AM
TUAD,
I think I can speak for Stuart and GL as well as myself in saying that we speak to the argument and not to the person, and our reactions would not have been different. Per Stuart's explanation of truth as self-authenticating, Francesca is wrong because she is wrong, not because she is Francesca. And, for that matter, none of of us really knows Francesca. She is, for all intents and purposes, a cyberspace abstraction.
And where did you ever get the idea that Stuart gets, or would get, a free pass on this site for *anything*?
Especially from moi? ;-)
(Miss Piggy bat her eyelashes)
Posted by: James A. Altena | Sep 1, 2007 10:29:17 AM
Stuart,
Your essay response is interesting. In it, you affirmed the Protestant principle (of sola Scriptura supra omne), and rejected the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church concerning its teaching authority. If I understand correctly.
I would say, though, that I would prefer God's revealed words to His hidden ones, as it is much less likely to be self-deceived when the data are in the open that the interpretation can be challenged.
The monothelete question was obviously settled in Maximos' time, and he disagreed with it, and with the Church.
The LCMS rejected the Agreed Statement just because that is what they do. Not for actual theological reasons, but for suspicion, institutional PTSD, internal politics, etc.
Are not the Eastern Catholics part of the Roman Catholic Church and in submission to the bishop of Rome and his Petrine claims, and only differ in rite
Posted by: labrialumn | Sep 1, 2007 11:41:51 AM
>>>That is, he has not just a right, but a duty in his private life to follow his conscience but that his publicly attacking those teachings creates scandal and he may not do that. Despite what Francesca may think, I have read about and discussed these issues with serious, devout Catholics for many years, while she was still a child.<<<
It goes a little bit beyond that. In certain cases, one is in fact obliged to speak out if one thinks the Church is teaching falsehood (Maximos did not hold his tongue, except after they cut it out), or is acting contrary to the teachings of Christ.
The Church hierarchy, for its part, has a right and obligation to act in accordance with what it teaches and to exercise its disciplinary authority over its members. This is where Francesca parts company from me (and by extension, St. Maximos): I can speak out, as Maximos spoke out, against a perceived falsehood or wrong of the Church. The Church is under no obligation to listen to me, or to change its thinking or behavior on my account. It can, in fact, take a whole range of disciplinary actions against me, including formal excommunication (they no longer cut off hands or slice off tongues, or so I have heard).
Francesca thinks they have no such right--that she can say and do what she wants, and the Church has no authority in the matter. I believe it does, and so did St. Maximos. So, he was prepared, as I am prepared, to take the consequences of our actions. In his case, this meant torture, mutilation and exile. He never said the authorities had no right to do that to him. Instead, he bore witness through submission, and in the end was vindcated by the mind of the Church.
This, I think, is one of the main differences between Catholic and Orthodox dissidents today. There are in both a number of people who believe, e.g., that women can be ordained to the presbyterate (far fewer among the Orthodox, to be sure). But among Catholics who so think there seems to be a belief that they can demand that sort of change from the Church, and if the Church fails to act, they can take matters into their own hands--and still remain Catholics in good standing. An Orthodox with similar beliefs, on the other hand, usually doesn't claim that the Church "must" do either this or that. He may speak about it, but he is not going to place demands on the Church, let alone act outside of Church authority. Push comes to shove, if he feels strongly enough about it, he just leaves.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Sep 1, 2007 11:46:29 AM
>>>The monothelete question was obviously settled in Maximos' time, and he disagreed with it, and with the Church.<<<
Actually, AFTER his time. Maximos was arrested, tried for treason, tortured, mutilated and sent into exile. He was not vindicated formally until the Sixth Ecumenical Council in 681.
>>>The LCMS rejected the Agreed Statement just because that is what they do. Not for actual theological reasons, but for suspicion, institutional PTSD, internal politics, etc.<<<
Just as, e.g., the Cyrillians rejected any Christological formulation that diverged from that made by the great Alexandrian Father--it was what they did. They chose to misconstrue Chalcedon (albeit helped by blatantly diphysite interpreters of that Council who gave it a distinctly Nestorian tinge). Certainly we see a lot of reflexive opposition to compromise with other Traditions even when these do not affect substantive issues (look at how the Orthodox and the Catholics bicker), but that does not mean there are NO legitimate differences in interpretation.
>>>Are not the Eastern Catholics part of the Roman Catholic Church and in submission to the bishop of Rome and his Petrine claims, and only differ in rite<<<
Depends on who you ask. An ultramontanist or unreconstructed Uniate would say, "Of course!", but most of us would disagree with the statement on several points:
1. We are not "part of the Roman Catholic Church", but are members of distinct and autonomous particular Churches (ecclesiae sui juris), which have their own Traditions, their own hierarchies, and their own ecclesiastical doctrines and disciplines.
2. We are no in submission to the Bishop of Rome, but are in communion with him. When in the Divine Liturgy we ask God to provide us with "true communion in the Holy Spirit", we are speaking of an image of the relationship among the persons of the Holy Trinity. Is the Son greater than the Father? Is the Father greater than the Son and the Spirit? Is the Spirit inferior in any way to the Father and the Son? Or are the three not all equally God, one and indivisible? There is certainly hierarchy in the Trinity, but there is no subordination, let alone submission. Rather, it is perfect communion because each knows the other as well has himself, and each defers to the other according to his gifts. So it should be with the Church, that all defer to all in Christ.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Sep 1, 2007 11:58:52 AM
It's just that I have a nagging suspicion that if Stuart were to voice Francesca's opinion, then he'd get a free pass because he was Stuart!
No. Were it helpful to call Mr. Koehl an ass whenever he writes like one, you might find him so labeled more frequently, but I imagine many of us have decided it's not helpful. More to the point, if silence betokens "a free pass," then I may have many recriminations to offer you, TUAD.
Posted by: DGP | Sep 1, 2007 12:31:19 PM
Not to mention that we are all asses from time to time. There is kind of a quid pro quo: I won't call another poster an ass when he is being one if he doesn't call me an ass when I am. I think I get the better end of that unspoken bargain. ;-)
Posted by: GL | Sep 1, 2007 12:37:10 PM
Let's have GL and Bill R. hold a trial -- bring on the ass-sizes! :-)
Posted by: James A. Altena | Sep 1, 2007 2:04:33 PM
>>>Let's have GL and Bill R. hold a trial -- bring on the ass-sizes! :-)<<<
Does this cassock make me look fat?
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Sep 1, 2007 2:37:28 PM
So how does he teach his children?
I have not asked him, but based on what he has told me about his view of private conscience, I doubt he has shared his differences with the Church, in any, with them. Indeed, I cannot say with certainty that he does disagree with any of the Church's teachings. It has been several years ago, but if memory serves me, he was discussing well-known Catholics who were speaking out against official Church teaching and explaining to me that such men could be good Catholics and disagree with various of the Church's teachings, but they could not seek to persuade others to reject Church teaching and, in fact, their doing so would be grounds for excommunication.
Posted by: GL | Sep 1, 2007 3:11:03 PM
TUAD,
I have had some rather heated debates with Stuart. I have not given him any passes and he has returned the favor. ;-) The difference between Stuart and Francesca is that he has great knowledge, thinks logically and makes arguments that cohere. Even when I adamantly disagree with him and even think he is an ass (and I am sure he has thought me an ass at times -- no offense intended Stuart), his arguments have great substance. If Francesca in fact has the same bases for her differences over contraception, she has failed miserably to articulate it. Her posts come across as "I have read the documents and I know what they say, but I reject them because I have a right to in exercising my conscience." Stuart doesn't do that. He argues from (not against) Tradition. I generally disagree with his views on this topic, but there is a world of difference in the two approaches.
Posted by: GL | Sep 1, 2007 3:20:24 PM
And with GL's critique, I am thankfully unaware of whether Francesca indeed rejects Tradition without denying its applicability.
As are we all because she has failed to articulate why she rejects Tradition beyond an open ended reliance on her "primacy of conscience." Based on her past posts, however, it appears that she rejects Tradition whenever it clashes with the worldview of modern, secular liberalism.
Posted by: GL | Sep 1, 2007 3:24:31 PM
>>>It has been several years ago, but if memory serves me, he was discussing well-known Catholics who were speaking out against official Church teaching and explaining to me that such men could be good Catholics and disagree with various of the Church's teachings, but they could not seek to persuade others to reject Church teaching and, in fact, their doing so would be grounds for excommunication.<<<
This seems wishy-washy, a way to eat your cake and have it, too. I'll quote that eminent authority, myself, from my previous post:
>>>This, I think, is one of the main differences between Catholic and Orthodox dissidents today. There are in both a number of people who believe, e.g., that women can be ordained to the presbyterate (far fewer among the Orthodox, to be sure). But among Catholics who so think there seems to be a belief that they can demand that sort of change from the Church, and if the Church fails to act, they can take matters into their own hands--and still remain Catholics in good standing. An Orthodox with similar beliefs, on the other hand, usually doesn't claim that the Church "must" do either this or that. He may speak about it, but he is not going to place demands on the Church, let alone act outside of Church authority. Push comes to shove, if he feels strongly enough about it, he just leaves.<<<
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Sep 1, 2007 4:04:08 PM
Stuart,
My friend's remarks were in reference to a specific Catholic "dignitary" (a well-known cleric) who was visiting campus and whose disputes with the teachings of the Church were well known. His remarks were in response to questions I raised about Catholics who openly dispute Church teaching and whether one could object to Church teaching and still be a good Catholic. I am not inclined to mention the name of the visitor, who would be known to all here. His objections were to our guest's *public* rejection of Church teaching and his teaching others to follow his views, not that out guest privately held such views or even shared them within "proper" channels. Indeed, he thought our guest had an obligation to do the latter, but thought the former was scandalous. I am disinclined to be more specific than that.
Posted by: GL | Sep 1, 2007 5:28:00 PM
Not to mention that we are all asses from time to time. There is kind of a quid pro quo: I won't call another poster an ass when he is being one if he doesn't call me an ass when I am.
Let me be the first, if not the last, to point out that I, too, have benefited from the same social contract!
Posted by: DGP | Sep 1, 2007 6:15:57 PM
"Per Stuart's explanation of truth as self-authenticating, Francesca is wrong because she is wrong, not because she is Francesca." (James Altena)
"... she has failed to articulate why she rejects Tradition beyond an open ended reliance on her "primacy of conscience." Based on her past posts, however, it appears that she rejects Tradition whenever it clashes with the worldview of modern, secular liberalism." (GL)
I am heartened to learn that folks do want to respond to arguments, and not stereotyped people, and thereby attempt to treat the person making an argument as if they were a "cyberspace abstraction."
I wish I had thought of this when I wrote my post above. Alas, it came to me after a full day with family. The real separation between Stuart and Francesca is NOT the "principle" of primacy of a well-formed conscience. There is complete agreement there between them.
The real difference is in the application of the principle! I assume there are guidelines to the application of the "conscience" principle. What folks are arguing is that Francesca is being irresponsible in *HOW* she applies those guidelines. Whereas with Stuart, folks are assuming that Stuart is applying those guidelines with utmost care, cautiousness, and humility.
Now I have no basis with which to judge Francesca, moreover I'm glad that I don't have to judge Francesca (or anyone else) as to whether she is properly applying the "well-formed primacy of conscience" principle.
So when I informed Stuart that I am not seeing any gap between he and Francesca, IMHO the better response would be: "There is no difference between Francesca and I as far as the statement that there is a "well-formed primacy of conscience" principle within Catholicism. BUT!!! Where we differ is that there is a PROPER way to apply this principle and an IMPROPER way to apply this principle. In other words, the gap is in HOW we apply the principle. Based upon reading her arguments on previous threads, I think there is a significant chance that she's misapplying the principle based upon a strong influence from modern secular liberalism (per GL). Her citation of Hans Kung is evidence of this creeping liberalism into her worldview."
Now if Stuart were to write that... that would make sense to me. In short, he just has to write: "We agree on the principle; she just misapplies it badly. That's the gap TUAD."
Then I would have to decide whether to respond or not. I might write something like: "In that case I think the loving thing to do is to dialogue with Francesca about (1) discern whether the Church is actually in theological error or whether you are, and if she's still convicted, then (2) *HOW* to properly apply the "well-formed primacy of conscience principle", and (3) instructing her not to spread her individual convictions to others (unlike Luther). After that, the fellow Christian has done everything to love his/her neighbor as him/herself.
Specific eg. Francesca and her belief that in some cases non-abortifacient contraceptives are not sinful in a marital relationship. Do the three steps above prayerfully and lovingly with Francesca. Then trust God for the rest. Heated discussion in Step 1 can be expected. But after that, the discussion should calm down.
Anyways, that's how I'm processing things at the moment.
Pax in Christ alone.
Posted by: Truth Unites...and Divides | Sep 2, 2007 12:42:15 AM
"I wish I had thought of this when I wrote my post above."
Should be changed to "I wish I had thought of the following when I wrote my post above."
The referent is confusing in the initial version.
Posted by: Truth Unites...and Divides | Sep 2, 2007 1:35:09 AM
Hypothetical, yet specific example.
Suppose both Stuart and Francesca believe that the use of non-abortifacient contraceptives for married couples is not a sin. Based on my limited knowledge of what GL claims, the RCC has declared this to be sin. Stuart advances the claim of a well-formed primacy of conscience principle outlining his reasons and furthermore, explicating his humility in prayer, thorough theological study, and utmost care and caution in doing so. Furthermore, he teaches this to no one else save his spouse.
Stuart articulates this on MereComments. Francesca then echoes that she has done the same, and since Stuart has already articulated her theological struggles and ultimate conviction that such contraceptives are not sinful for her and her spouse either, she merely jumps in with spiked high heels on Stuart's caboose-sized cassock and tags along happily in the musty wake.
Now it's entirely possible for folks to independently arrive at the same conclusions regarding their convictions via the same pathway. One of them may articulate it a little better, more cogently and more persuasive.
Therefore, if Stuart declares a principle and scrupulously applies it with utmost integrity, and Francesca declares that she has done exactly the same on both counts, then for logical consistency, either both should be given the benefit of the doubt, or neither.
Posted by: Truth Unites... and Divides | Sep 2, 2007 3:53:25 PM
One can be right for the right reasons, and one can be right for the wrong reasons. But Francesca is in fact just wrong for the wrong reasons, and TUAD has misconstrued my position, which is not that contraceptives are licit, but rather that they are an areas subject to oikonomia. This may seem as contradictory as the Eastern Church's belief in the indissoluability of marriage while simultaneously allowing remarriage after divorce. But the contradiction exists only in the context of Western theological categories.
The Western way, particularly the Roman Catholic way, of dealing with issues of this sort, is to establish hard and fast rules and force people to conform. But, as Archbishop Joseph (Raya) of blessed memory wrote, the Eastern Church prefers to set an evangelical example and provide spiritual support for the faithful while being cognizant of human weakness.
Thus, with regard to contraception, the Eastern Church (or at least substantial elements of it) believes that the Christian ideal is to constantly be open to the formation of new life, while recognizing that not everyone is either physically, emotionally or spiritually capable of doing so. Then, the Church focuses on the reasons for spacing or limiting the number of children, recognizing that there are both valid and invalid reason for doing so within Christian marriage.
Having determined proper and improper reasons for controlling conception, the Church then focuses on the means by which this aim is achieved. Obviously, natural means are preferred, but these may not work for all couples, in which case those artificial means which do not result in the destruction of an unborn child are acceptable--as third best.
With marriage, the Church would encourage people to enter into only one sacramental marriage in a lifetime, but recognizing that it is better to marry than to burn, permits non-sacramental remarriage through oikonomia. With procreation, the Church would encourage people to place their full trust in God, but if that is not possible, would assist them in finding the way which is spiritually best for their unique circumstances.
But contraception is closer to fasting regulations than it is to marriage, in that there is the potential for spiritual growth over time. The neophyte to fasting is discouraged from trying to do too much at one time; so the neophyte to family planning might not be ready immediately to attain the Christian ideal. Thus, there could be a progression, from artificial means (unless these are adopted for physical reasons), to natural means, to a situation constantly open to life.
This is very different from what Francesca's belief, which posits no ideals whatsoever, and thus is not amenable to Tradition or to oikonomia, but rather is merely transgressive.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Sep 2, 2007 4:19:24 PM
The Western way, particularly the Roman Catholic way, of dealing with issues of this sort, is to establish hard and fast rules and force people to conform.
Mr. Koehl, you were quite eager to accuse me of simplistic defense of the RCC, even when you misunderstood what I wrote. Now, however, you show yourself quite capable of simplistic caricatures, so long as they serve as suitable straw men for you. Were I taking TUAD's advice, I'd now call you an ass.
Posted by: DGP | Sep 2, 2007 8:08:01 PM
>>>Were I taking TUAD's advice, I'd now call you an ass.<<<
Consider it done, my prickly fellow. So tell me--why doesn't the Latin Church allow remarriage, but must go through the sham of nullification? Given the breathtaking shallowness behind some of these judgments, I can only conclude (as did Archbishop Joseph) that this is merely backdoor oikonomia, an attempt to wrangle some sort of pastoral sensitivity from an excessively rigid application of doctrine.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Sep 2, 2007 9:06:30 PM
TUAD,
You were not, at least publicly, participating on MC when Stuart and I debated this more than a year ago. His post of Sep 2, 2007 4:19:24 PM fairly summarizes the position he articulated then. I am disinclined to once again summarize my own views other than to say that I am somewhere between the Roman Catholic view and the view articulated by Stuart. The Catholic approach seems too rigid to me, while the Easter view seems too flexible. Note, however, both views maintain that the use of contraceptives in normal situations (Eastern) or ever (Roman) is sinful. This contrasts to the innovative view of modern Protestantism that the use of contraceptives raises no moral issues whatsoever. This is an extremely modern and self-serving position.
As you should now be able to see, while I do not completely agree with Stuart's position (nor with the Roman Catholic position), there is a world of difference between his approach and those of most modern Protestants and Francesca. I do understand that it is hard for Protestants today who have known no other view to accept the position that the normative use of contraception is gravely sinful and is, in fact, part of the same category of sin as same-sex relationships and artificial reproduction, but this was, in fact, the position of all Christians until fairly recently. I hope you will be open to studying the matter.
Your brother in Christ,
GL
Posted by: GL | Sep 2, 2007 9:26:43 PM
