Weigel on Catholic/Orthodox Disunity

Over at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, EPPC senior fellow George Weigel examines the dismay of Orthodox monks on Mount Athos in northern Greece at recent overtures toward conversation by Pope Benedict  XVI to Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople. The issue for the monk, Weigel notes, was not any papal statement or initiative but the Ecumenical Patriarch's reception of them as though the Pope actually were "the canonical Bishop of Rome." In this, Weigel sees an illustration of Orthodox/Catholic tensions that are not as easily overcome as it might seem to some Catholics, and certainly to some of us who are on watching from the outside of both groups.

Weigel writes:

I very much doubt that there are more than a handful of Catholics around the world whose confession of Catholic faith includes, as a key component, "I am not in communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople."

The truth of the matter is that, outside historically Orthodox countries and certain ethnic communities, the thought of how one stands vis-à-vis the Patriarch of Constantinople simply doesn't enter Catholic heads. Perhaps that's a problem, but it's nowhere near as great an obstacle to ecumenical progress as the conviction in some Orthodox quarters that non-communion with Rome is a defining characteristic of what it means to be "Orthodox."

1054, it now seems clear, was not a date-in-a-vacuum. Rather, the mutual excommunications of 1054 were the cash-out, so to speak, of a drifting-apart that had been going on for centuries, driven by language and politics, to be sure, but also by different theological sensibilities. Are those two sensibilities necessarily Church-dividing? The Catholic answer is, "No." But that is emphatically not the answer of Mount Athos, and of those Orthodox for whom the Athonite monks are essentially right, if a bit over-the-top.

All of which suggests that John Paul II's dream of a Church breathing once again with both of its lungs is unlikely of fulfillment anytime soon. Unless, that is, Islamist pressures compel a reexamination within Orthodoxy of what a life-line to Rome might mean.

Comments

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Agreed. However, it must be stated, that Stuart is an ecumenical activist<<<

I've been promoted! I'm going to have to apply to the Vatican for an increase in my covert stipend. Where did I put the phone number for Opus Dei?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>If anyone denies the radical differences between Orthodox and Catholic theology than they are just ignorant. <<<

If anyone relies on the polemical exchanges of Catholic and Orthodox blogs for information on Catholic and Orthodox theology, he is far worse than ignorant.

And do try to make your pronouns agree. Anyone = third person singular; they = third person plural. You'll be using inclusive language next. The thin end of the wedge, you know.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Weren't James the Zealot and Matthew the tax collector in communion too? Perhaps the only reason some folks look like they are going in opposite directions is because they are approaching Christ from opposite sides.<<<

Leave it to the Protestant to so successfully paraphrase St. Dositheus and the wheel.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>THe Orthodox church has kept the same doctrine, free of innovation since the time of the Apostles.<<<

My advice to Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants alike: DO NOT DRINK YOUR OWN BATHWATER.

[DGP]

>>My advice to Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants alike: DO NOT DRINK YOUR OWN BATHWATER.<<

Or, if your conscience obliges you to do so, chase it down with some self-deprecating humor.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Or, if your conscience obliges you to do so, chase it down with some self-deprecating humor.<<<

Lavvender bath salts add a piquant aftertaste, don't you think?

[Bobby Winters]

Just as long as you don't like your bath water effervescent.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Just as long as you don't like your bath water effervescent.<<<

One box of Alka Seltzer does the trick.

[James A. Altena]

There are serious differences. The questions, however, are:

a) whether those are irreconcilable differences or not; and
b) whether one appraoches them in the mode of "I already know I'm right and you're wrong, and you have to change and become as I am"; the mode of "Can't we all just get along?"; or the mode of "Come, let us reason together", considering that confidence in one's views need not either ossify into self-righteousness nor dissolve into mindless indifferentism, but rather can have both the strength and resiliency to listen and think anew, holding open in humility the possibility that one has an incomplete or flawed understanding of both the other side's position and one's own as well, and that the fellow on the other side may truly enlighten one regarding both, just as one hopes similarly to enlighten him.

True ecumencial progress will be made only when the goal is the truly selfless pursuit of truth, rather than of victory at any cost or peace at any price.

[Michael Martin]

I am surprised that with all this yammering about Orthodox "unity" no one mentioned the very real possibility of schism RIGHT NOW between the American Orthodox and their mother churches (of whatever ethnic stripe) in the Old World. That move would render many of the arguments posted here absurd.

[Christopher]

"And do try to make your pronouns agree. Anyone = third person singular; they = third person plural. You'll be using inclusive language next."

Ouch, and this right after "And, to quite Dr. David Hart once more,". But hay, (or perhaps it's "hey" or maybe "hieyeay"??) what does Mark know...

[Christopher]

"To the best of my knowledge, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nanzianzen, Basil the Great and St. Augustine were all in communion with one another...If you want to know what Augustine says, read Augustine..."

Yes yes. You could start with De Trinitate to see just how the west got started off on the wrong foot when it comes to Filioque (or is it faloka, or feliocitousque, I'm sure someone will enlighten us), etc. etc....

[DGP]

>>...the very real possibility of schism RIGHT NOW between the American Orthodox and their mother churches.... That move would render many of the arguments posted here absurd.<<

Really? Do the Orthodox even now have much of a consensus concerning their unity?

That's an honest question, BTW, not rhetorical. I'm really not too sure what the Orthodox think of their own unity.

[Bob Gardner]

Christopher,
If you could put your caustic quips aside this might be a worthwhile exchange. I agree with Stuart's approach, and believe it echoes the approach of some prominent Orthodox (e.g. Bishop Ware). It does neither side any good to hold onto old polemics. Anyone who knows Stuart knows that he isn't afraid to differ with the Latin Church at times (indeed my first introduction to him was on a thread Eight Woman and a Boat where he was taken to task for beating up on the RC. I think his point of departure with you, and others, is he doesn't see the issues as being substantive enough to break communion. If we use the first millennia as a paradigm, I think this is a reasonable approach, since the East and West always had differing approaches, but remained in communion. Stuart is quite able to fend for himself, but I don't see the need for the sarcasm so much.

[Michael Martin]

>>>Really? Do the Orthodox even now have much of a consensus concerning their unity?<<<

Padre,
You will notice the quotes I employed.

[Matthias]

>>...the very real possibility of schism RIGHT NOW between the American Orthodox and their mother churches.... That move would render many of the arguments posted here absurd.<<

A schism in the Orthodox Church! I don't know what could possibly be more shocking and devastating to the Orthodox cause. Except, perhaps, the recognition by the Orthodox of the existence of an "Islamist threat".

And so we come full circle to the start of the thread. From a snarky comment made by me drawing a rebuke from MM, to a similar comment provoked by my rebuker. For the sake of elegance, if nothing else, I hope this thread ends here. Cheers.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Really? Do the Orthodox even now have much of a consensus concerning their unity?<<<

Well, you could look up the Ligonier statement, which called for the formation of a single, unified and autocephalous American Orthodox Church, something which caused howls of pain in every patriarchical chancery from Constantinople to Damascus. And look up the growing disgust within the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese over the increasingly arbitrary governance of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, which practically broke the Church twice, once over the behavior of Archbishop Spyridon, again over the issuance of a new and more restrictive charter for the GOA. Only the Antiocian Patriarchate seems to realize that the Orthodox "diaspora" is not such thing, but rather the permanent planting of the faith on new shores, But even Antioch balked at granting full independence to its American branch, stopping short at autonomy.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>A schism in the Orthodox Church! I don't know what could possibly be more shocking and devastating to the Orthodox cause.<<<

Aside from the problems in the American jurisdictions, Moscow and Constantinople are barely on speaking terms with one another, and in fact broke communion over the status of the Estonian Orthodox Church a few years back, which event so shocked Bishop Kallistos (who found the microcosmic Greek and Russian Orthodox communities separated from each other by a tawdry grab for territory that involved them not in the least) that he began to look anew at the need for some sort of effective universal primacy as a necessary focus of unity to keep the entire Orthodox communion from atomizing.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Yes yes. You could start with De Trinitate to see just how the west got started off on the wrong foot when it comes to Filioque (or is it faloka, or feliocitousque, I'm sure someone will enlighten us), etc. etc....<<<

You seem to think you know what the Catholic Church says about the Filioque. You are wrong.

And in the process, you make my point that there are numerous Orthodox who cannot accept the legitimacy of any theology that is not expressly Byzantine.

I have many times quoted Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger's 1976 speech in Graz, reiterated in his 1985 book on Catholic doctrine, in which he said that the Catholic Church could demand no more from the Orthodox regarding the papacy than that which was professed and lived by the Church of the first millennium.

The second half of his statement dealt with what the Orthodox can demand of the Catholic Church: that they accept the legitmacy of organic doctrinal development within the Latin Church that does not violate the integrity of the Apostolic Tradition. And again, the first millennium provides us with a model here. Maximos the Confessor recognized that they do things differently in Rome, but that different did not equal wrong.

Yes, there were developments in the Latin Church in the second millennium that were in fact distortions of the Western Tradition. But these were, in fact, the result of the West's isolation from the Christian East, which allowed certain trends to be carried to excess. On the other hand, the isolation of the Christian East from the West also allowed the same thing to happen within the Orthodox Church. This is why both Churches need each other, suffer for the absence of the other, and would be much stronger and happer together than apart.

[DGP]

>>You will notice the quotes I employed.<<

Yes, Mr. Martin, I noticed the quotes. The substance of the question was whether and how further disunity renders the arguments here absurd. (For some of the arguments, this should read, "more absurd than before.") That was the claim you made, to which I responded, "Really?" If folks here are already able to speak this way about Orthodoxy when it is already so divided, what difference will one more division make to their reasoning?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I'm not sure why it is assumed that I demonstrated excessive zeal in my above post. Every church believes (hopefully) that it bears the truth. <<<

It is one thing to believe that one's own confession bears witness to the truth. It is quite another to assume therefore that no other confession does, or that therefore there is no need to work towards the unity of all believers that is a scandal to the world and a deliberate violation of Christ's command that we love one another so that the world may know who sent Him. And it is sheer folly (to say nothing of ignorance) to believe that throughout the course of history, one's own Church has always been blameless in such affronts to Christian unity.

>>>To put a finer point to it: If Rome truly believes in its papal claims then they aren't going to be on the table. If Orthodoxy truly believes in conciliarity and that the papal claims are invalid, and this is an integral part of the faith, then what is to be gained from these discussions? <<<

This assumes, first of all, that we are in fact dealing with a fundamental theological issue, and not merely a matter of Church governance. The organization of the Church and its modes of leadership have evolved over the centuries because the hierarchy of the Church exists to serve the Church, and not vice versa. There have been many different modalities of primacy in the past, and there will be more in the future. It is typical of many Orthodox that they are more inclined to take papal claims at face value than are the popes themselves. If we are dealing with a matter of Church governance, then there is ample room for a coming together in truth.

What is the truth? The truth is the current manner in which the Petrine ministry is defined and exercised is not consistent with the patterns of the first millennium. The truth is the manner in which the Orthodox Church is currently governed as a loosely bound confederation of autocephalous national Churches is also contrary to the patterns of the first millennium. Neither Rome nor the Orthodox Church is living in accordance with the letter or the spirit of the ancient canons. Both suffer as a result, Rome from an excessive centralization that has infantilized its episcopate and rendered it incapable of dealing with local problems on a local level; Orthodoxy from a lack of meaningful primacy that results in centrifugal forces pulling the Church apart. Orthodoxy needs primacy; Rome needs conciliarity. Neither is complete without the other. To pretend otherwise, to retreat in the certitiude that one's own Church is the exclusive repository of truth, to maintain a division of the Body of Christ over such a trivial matter, must certainly make Satan laugh at our puny endeavors to be a Bride worthy of the Bridegroom.

[Christopher]

"I agree with Stuart's approach, and believe it echoes the approach of some prominent Orthodox (e.g. Bishop Ware)"

And Weigel for that matter. Obviously, I don't agree with this approach, for reasons I have already said. The doctrinal differences are significant and deep - thus you can't "talk" your way out of it with an enlightened "listening" and re-re-interpretation of terms.

Look, the approach that about 1500 years of so our Christian forbear's simply just had it out for each other, and if we try really really hard to listen now, all these disagreements will go away is:

A) Arrogant. We assume that previous generations did not apply Christian virtue and simply refused to "listen" to each other. Not only that, they did not understand the subtleties’ of languages they were a lot closer to and actually spoke. Now that the enlightened twenty first centaury seminary professional has come along, he has "discovered" that they were simply talking past each other all these years.

B) Ignores the influence of these ways of thinking on the life of the church. For example, Stuart claims that I don't know what the Catholic church says about the Filioque. Well, I can read St. Augustine and see his neo-platonic view of the Holy Trinity (his reduction of the Trinity) not only in his own writing but in the subsequent history of the western church. So Stuart quotes a couple of things Ratzinger wrote and perhaps a few statements by this or that gathering of the above mentioned seminary professionals, and !WALLA!, Catholic doctrine and history is changed just like that. We all know it ain't so easy.

C) Stuart (and perhaps DGP - I think he is an 'eastern rite' priest - could be wrong about this) are a minority in the Catholic church. They have a lot invested in their particular cause. It is not without reasons that Orthodox see such folks as impediment to relations (using the term Uniate which most 'eastern rite' Catholics find derogatory, though I think this is due to a political correctness and the effort to re-reinterpret terms).

[Scott Pennington]

"It is typical of many Orthodox that they are more inclined to take papal claims at face value than are the popes themselves."

Fine, I'm willing to admit that some Catholics don't take their religion seriously. Congratulations.

"Orthodoxy needs primacy; Rome needs conciliarity. Neither is complete without the other. To pretend otherwise, to retreat in the certitiude that one's own Church is the exclusive repository of truth . . ."

We have a primus inter pares. Get over it. If you, or the latest generations of Catholics, have ceased to believe that your own church is The Church, then that's your problem. I'm not sure what about "ONE, holy, catholic and apostolic Church" you don't understand, but the Church has always understood this to be a visible unity. Anglicans believe differently and look at the mess they've created. As I said before, I'm not concerned with internal Catholic matters. Please don't expect us to share your lack of faith.

"And it is sheer folly (to say nothing of ignorance) to believe that throughout the course of history, one's own Church has always been blameless in such affronts to Christian unity."

I never made such a claim. Nice straw dummy for you to knock over though.

"This assumes, first of all, that we are in fact dealing with a fundamental theological issue, and not merely a matter of Church governance."

Church governance has always been a fundamental issue. Not all fundamental issues are explicitly theological. Church governance goes to the very heart of what the faith is, has been and will be. What could be more fundamental than the issue of what authority resolves contested matters of the faith? You seem to want to say anything to achieve unity even if it is an affront to your own church and the Orthodox. Who could have faith in such a new Church? Your spirit is actually very protestant, quasi-Anglican.

Again, we're just talking past each other. This subject was too tasty to pass up yesterday, but today I must revert to my old rule. Wish me luck at resisting the temptation to comment further.

God bless

[Christopher]

"Maximos the Confessor recognized that they do things differently in Rome, but that different did not equal wrong."

Except of course, when Rome is wrong. Different is not wrong. Wrong is wrong. different and right is right. Different and wrong is, well wrong.

"Yes, there were developments in the Latin Church in the second millennium that were in fact distortions of the Western Tradition. But these were, in fact, the result of the West's isolation from the Christian East, which allowed certain trends to be carried to excess. On the other hand, the isolation of the Christian East from the West also allowed the same thing to happen within the Orthodox Church. This is why both Churches need each other, suffer for the absence of the other, and would be much stronger and happer together than apart."

Perhaps this is the (or at least a) crux of the matter. I would argue most Orthodox do not believe that the West is needed to "save" the Orthodox Church. I certainly don't think the "same thing" happened in the East as did the West. I confess One Holy and Catholic and Apostolic Church - NOT a divided Church.

"This assumes, first of all, that we are in fact dealing with a fundamental theological issue, and not merely a matter of Church governance."

Vatican I proves beyond all doubt that we are dealing with "a fundamental theological issue", actually several, actually a whole way of thinking and 'doing theology' (as Lossky would say), that can not be reduced to a minor matter of ecclesiology. I think those who do to easily buy into the One Big Misunderstanding theory of schism and church history.

"Orthodoxy needs primacy"

IF this is so, as you readily admit, it does NOT need Rome's version. So, why go/submit/compromise/re-re-reinterpret with Rome? The Church will straighten this (and plenty else) out. This may seem insular, but what do you get when you add clean water to dirty water? More dirty water...

[Ethan Cordray]

>>Your spirit is actually very protestant, quasi-Anglican.<<

Welcome, Stuart! :-)

From my seat on the sidelines, it seems odd to me that the ones most asserting the necessity of visible institutional Church unity seem to also be denying the possibility of it ever coming to pass.

This is making the Protestant idea of invisible unity seem a whole lot better to me.

[Christopher]

"From my seat on the sidelines, it seems odd to me that the ones most asserting the necessity of visible institutional Church unity seem to also be denying the possibility of it ever coming to pass."

Ethan, please. What we are "denying" is Stuart's "hyper-unity" way of compromise. What we are denying is the 'One Big Misunderstanding' version of schism and church history.

Besides, I believe it to be Stuart who is asserting the "necessity of visible institutional Church unity", if I understand what you are saying. In fact, we "need" each other to in essence "save" each other from ourselves in his reading. I deny that fur sur...

[Gene Godbold]

I'm not trying to insert myself as some sort of referee here but I think Stuart's view of Christian unity is a lot more attractive than Scott's or Christopher's. Maybe they're right and Stuart is deluded, but it does seem that he's closer to the spirit of John 17 than they are. Scott and Christopher seem to want to pour cold water (which is apparently based on sentiment more than facts--not denying that sentiments can have rational bases) on Stuart's outline for future unity. It looks to me that--in that outline/proposal--the Roman Church will have to give up more than the Orthodox Church. But if she were willing to do so (notice the use of the subjunctive, I'm not completely convinced either), why do you seem to want to drown the possibility, strangling the baby in the cradle (to mix muddled metaphors).

Incidentally, I'm an Anglican (and a deacon) and my brother is Orthodox (OCA). We were both raised Roman Catholic.

[Ethan Cordray]

Christopher, so what, then, do you propose as an alternative to unite the East and West? That the "wrong side" just give up and pitch over their 1,000 year old traditions? Would you respect that, if it did suddenly occur?

Sure Stuart believes in the necesasity of visible unity. But he also believes that it can happen, without one side simply triumphing over the other. Of course he may be wrong -- I even believe he probably is -- but if he is I don't see any other ecumenical alternative to continued division.

And if one believes that their opposite number is in fact a valid portion of the True Church with valid sacraments, but that visible institutional unity is impossible, then it seems to me that one must go looking for unity somewhere else, like in the invisible spiritual body of Christ.

But don't let my protestations interfere with your refighting of ancient schisms.

[DGP]

>>it seems odd to me that the ones most asserting the necessity of visible institutional Church unity seem to also be denying the possibility of it ever coming to pass.<<

I'm the Latin in this conversation, and if visible Church unity is necessary, the necessity is moral, not logical. Division among Christians is sad because it defies the will of Christ, but that doesn't change the facts of this world.

Some Lutherans are at least consistent about their notion of Church unity, for it parallels their notion of moral transformation -- beginning as it does with a kind of "imputation," an invisible righteousness that is not contradicted by visible corruption. (Please don't start quibbling over the word "imputation"; I am well aware of its use and misuse in ecumenical conversations about soteriology. I use the term here solely because it suits what I think Mr. Cordray is thinking.)

From a Latin perspective, these notions of unity and salvation are partly correct: There *is* an invisible unity, and there *is* an invisible sanctification. But they are also partly unbiblical and inhuman: We are naturally bodily and social and moral creatures. We will not have received the unity Christ offers until it is visible and institutional.

BTW, Christopher, I'm Latin.

[Christopher]

Gene says;

"why do you seem to want to drown the possibility"

I think it has to do with what the Orthodox (and most Catholics for that matter) believe the Church IS. It's not that we want to drown ANY possibility, it's that we don't think Stuart's view of things is correct - that it IS a possibility. Interestingly, you state that it is my view that is "sentimental" and not based in facts. That's exactly the charge I level at Stuart's (and those like) view of church history, schism, and present doctrinal differences. In other words, factually, it is not 'One Big Misunderstanding'. We have real (i.e. factual) theological/doctrinal differences, and it is "sentimental" when we re-interpret them in light of a present felt need for unity.

It is exactly a "sentimental" interpretation of John 17 I am against. I oppose these "sentimental" efforts to re-reinterpret real doctrinal differences. I of course would oppose any sentimental compromise.

I also find it interesting that unity is to be based on compromise, and that any proposal that contains a significant amount is more "attractive". Is that not sentimental? If the Catholics "give up more" is that some sort of way to determine the Truth?

Perhaps your attracted to Stuart’s way of thinking because as someone upstream described, it is “
Anglican like”?

[Ethan Cordray]

DGP, I think I agree with you about the incompleteness of invisible unity, but I am pessimistic about full visible unity occurring before the visible return of Christ.

[Christopher]

"But don't let my protestations interfere with your refighting of ancient schisms."

You see right there, right there! These disagreements are "ancient", meaning not relevant - simple misunderstandings, not even understood by the majority of believers (as if a majority determines the truth of the matter) and certainly not as important as visible unity. They have nothing to do (or at least not much) with real Doctrine, real Theology, real Salvation. We should just talk it all out, re-re-reinterpret in the best possible light and call it Charity, instead of "refighting" like an old dog chasing it's tail for a thousand years.

You asked:

"Christopher, so what, then, do you propose as an alternative to unite the East and West?"

What sort of answer could I give in light of the above? Your paradigm does not admit the Orthodox view of the Church, thus anything will sound like "refighting ancient schisms". Maybe "ecumenism" is more complicated than a quick modernist view would suggest...;)

[Christopher]

"But he also believes that it can happen, without one side simply triumphing over the other."

Is not the Truth Triumphant, as Christ is Triumphant on the Cross AND as He is Triumph over all things, even now?

Question: What does Christ's Triumphant Truth have to do with the Church? What does it have to do with "visible unity", the Church as "institution", and the like? I don't have all the answers, but it has SOME relationship I am sure...

[Gene Godbold]

Christopher,
Maybe you're right and I've been drinking Anglican bathwater (though I'm a strange Anglican :-)

What if the shepherds of the RC church:
1) were willing to humble themselves to the shepherds of the Orthodox churches and admit that their predecessors had been high-handed in their dealings with the predecessors of the Orthodox churches
2) were willing to admit that particular mistakes (which were spelled out) had been made.
3) were willing to accept the mode of Petrine ministry that had been exercised, say, from 500-1000 in the Universal Church.

Then, do you think that this would hold any attraction for their Orthodox counterparts (as unlikely as you may feel this situation to be)? Or do you think these gestures of reconciliation would be rebuffed as "insufficient"?

[Ethan Cordray]

What I meant by "ancient schisms" is not that they're irrelevant, but that they're not going to be resolved with total victory to one side. Thie ancientness has not rendered them irrelevent, but it has rendered them invincibly entrenched

I am not well-studied enough to put forth an opinion about the truth of the Eastern Orthodox versus the Roman Catholic views of the Church. It may in fact be that one is right and the other wrong. My Protestant heritage disposes me to suspect that both might be wrong.

But regardless who who is right, visible institutional unity between East and West will be impossible without compromise. If compomise is impossible, so is visible unity.

Unity through victory is impossible at this point, and has been for hundreds of years.

[DGP]

[Ethan Cordray:] >>DGP, I think I agree with you about the incompleteness of invisible unity, but I am pessimistic about full visible unity occurring before the visible return of Christ.<<

Yes, I share your pessimism, but believe myself obliged to surrender my pessimism in prayer. As John Paul, who happened to lean toward optimism, and many others have pointed out, Christian unity is not first about pessimism or optimism, but about what the Holy Spirit is doing with us. (See my first post above.) Out of love for the Lord Jesus, we cooperate: We repent of our sins, make confession and contrition and penance and reparation, and strive diligently in the service of complete truth and eager hope and perfect charity. We do as we are commanded, and we trust God to make possible what he has commanded.

[Christopher]

Gene,

For #2 to take place, what you are really talking about, is repentance - and thus the Truth would triumph. #3 can mean a few things, but let's assume the best. #1 would be important "politically" but does not contain any significant content (that I can think of).

Does not seem like a compromise and the Truth prevails. How is that different than the Orthodox Church triumphing over the RC? Also, how does the influence of at least a thousand years of theological "mistakes" get suddenly cleansed from the tradition and thinking of the RC? Really, these are sincere questions...

[Gina Mosko]

#3 has been seriously compromised by Rome's long teaching on what that 500-1000 primacy consisted of. As earlier posters have said, Rome is not going to give up its doctrines of papal infallibility- can it even do so?- and the Orthodox can never accept them. Sorry to continue to be pessimistic. In some respects I admire the "compromises" that I see Eastern Catholics making in order to be in communion with Rome, but on the other hand I am suspicious of them. Are these really "trivial matters" as Stuart claims? What is formal unity without unity in substance?

Here's some commentary by Fr. Thomas Hopko, who seems to me to express both a strong desire for unity and a pragmatism about its likelihood.
What the Catholics Must Do For Unity

What the Orthodox Must Do

[David Gray]

>Well, I can read St. Augustine and see his neo-platonic view of the Holy Trinity (his reduction of the Trinity) not only in his own writing but in the subsequent history of the western church.

Fascinating but sad to see someone who says he is Orthodox trashing a church father.

[Christopher]

"Fascinating but sad to see someone who says he is Orthodox trashing a church father."

Did you READ what you quoted? Are there any teenagers that post here - apparantly I don't know what "trashing" means anymore...:)

[David Gray]

>Did you READ what you quoted?

So Augustine's "reduction of the Trinity" is a positive thing?

[Gene Godbold]

Christopher,
How do you think Augustine reduced the Trinity? I've read "The Confessions" and Peter Brown's biography of Augustine and I just finished listening to a 12 CD set on Augustine by the Learning Company (it's not bad). So, specifically, what did he say that leads you to think he was "reducing" the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

(Incidentally, I've got some problems with Augustine, too, but I'd never heard of this one.)

[Rob Grano]

Christopher, I take it you're referring to the idea of absolute divine simplicity? For those of you unfamiliar with this discussion, there are some Orthodox scholars who take issue with St Augustine's idea that the Divine is absolutely simple. They find this notion to be Platonic in nature and not Christian, and see it as the root of the theological problems between E and W. There are interesting, sometimes heated, discussions of it on various Catholic and Orthodox websites of a more philosophical/theological bent.

[kate]

Like Ethan Cordray, I am a Protestant and not competent to say who is right and who is wrong. However, I know what it’s like to think one’s own conception of the faith is the truest. Obviously, most people who care deeply about what they believe will not knowingly subscribe to wrong doctrine.

What I find lacking among a number of commenters on this thread, especially (I’m ducking while I type this) among the Orthodox writers, is a lack of humility in which to express their strong convictions. Even if I grant the Orthodox commenters their belief that the Orthodox Church is error-free in matters of doctrine, does that mean that their understanding of God and all His works is complete? Assuming they wouldn’t claim this, perhaps it would be good for the sake of fellow-Christ believers to come to these discussions clothed in a little more humility.

My having singled out a few Orthodox commenters in this thread is not meant to imply that they have a monopoly on arrogance; the supply is generously spread among all Christians. I think these blogging discussions would be even more interesting if the arrogant ones would wear their knowledge and convictions a little more lightly.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>We have a primus inter pares. <<<

This is true, but you do not understand what it means, because you tend to think of primacy in juridical (yes, you are latinized!) rather than charismatic terms. Therefore, to you primus inter pares implies a nominal or ceremonical primacy without any real teeth.

That is not how primacy was viewed by the Fathers, who lived in a society based on honor and status, not on law and contract. In the Greco-Roman world, there were really two types of power: auctoritas and potestas, the latter closely alligned with "imperium" (the power to command). Imperium and potestas were legal concepts, certain powers granted to a person through his formal position, tied to that position, ending when the person surrendered the position, and enforceable through the ability to coerce (that is why magistrates were accompanied by lictors).

On the other hand, auctoritas was a more personal, non-juridical moral suasion attached to a person by virtue of his character, and thus closely related to his dignitas. A private individual (privatus) could wield enormous auctoritas by virtue of his dignitas, even though he might not hold any formal office and lacked any type of potestas or imperium.

For example, the most respected member of the Senatus Romanum was the Princeps Senatus, the "First Man" of the Senate. He was most respected, but not necessarily the oldest or most senior. He was, simply by consensus, "the best". As such, he had certain privileges embedded in custom, such as the right to speak first after the Consuls, and also to have the last word in any debate. Though he was not a magistrate, and had no power to compel anyone to do anything, so great was his prestige that if he said something, people listened; and if he recommended a course of action, more often than not, that course was followed. No wonder Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus, when he wanted to consolidate all power in his person without taking on the trappings of monarchy, chose as his personal title "Princeps Senatus", or more simply, "Princeps" (whence our term "prince").

The same principles applied to the early Church. All bishops are equal in grace and dignity, but some carried more auctoritas than others, simply because they were either heads of Churches held in higher esteem, or because they themselves were seen as exemplars of holiness and models of episcopal leadership. The heads of the senior Churches were eventually recognized with the title of "Patriarch", yet look as you might, you can't find any formal powers conferred upon that title. Yet Patriarchs had immense influence over their suffragan bishops and within the wider circles of the Church, by virtue of their auctoritas. There was nothing in law to compel a bishop to do something because his patriarch said so, but the entire fabric of custom and Tradition required him to yield except in cases of obvious error.

Among the three (and later five) Churches headed by Patriarchs, custom and the canons of Constantinople and Chalcedon created a taxis or order of precedence: Old Rome; Constantinople (New Rome); Alexandria; Antioch; and Jerusalem. In dignity, all five of the Pentarchy were equal, but within the Pentarchy, there was a hierarchy, and Rome stood at the head of that Pentarchy. There was nothing in canon law that gave Rome any power over other Churches, but for a variety of reasons, when Rome spoke, people listened. Nobody could introduce any new doctrine or belief unless they could garner the support of Rome. Conversely, if Rome condemned something, the other Churches would think long and hard about endorsing it. And this was due entirely to Rome's auctoritas, not any sort of "plena potestas".

This same principle pertained down through the different levels of the Church. Just as in the Holy Trinity, which has hierarchy without subordination, so in the Church which is modeled after the Trinity, there is hierarchy without subordination, a true communion in the Holy Spirit. This is not anarchy, nor is it surrender; it is rather the submission of all to all in Christ. It is mirrored in the Canon of the Holy Apostles No. 34: "Let all the bishops defer to he who is first among them, and do nothing unusual without his consent; but let he who is first do nothing extraordinary without the advise and consent of all, so that unity in the Holy Spirit may prevail for the greater glory of the Trinity".

Primacy and conciliarity are thus revealed as opposite sides of the same coin, and within the Church you cannot have one without the other. This is what so many Orthodox do not understand: they see this as an either/or proposition, when it is "both/and". They also mimick ultramontane Latin thinking in seein primacy as a juridical construct, instead of as a ministry of service to all.

Thus, the Ecumenical Patriarch, the "primus inter pares", is certainly "pares", but not "primus" in any meaningful way. The other Orthodox patriarchs do not defer to him, nor do they recognize his status as primus, but rather treat him as the ecclesiastical equivalent of the Lord Mayor of London, whose duties are purely ceremonial, and who cannot, lacking both juridical and charismatic authority, maintain good order in the Church. The fruits of that failure are present for all to see.

[Christopher]

David, Gene, and Rob;

Yes, it comes back to how you do theology, or the order in which you proceed. St. Augustine (and I do acknowledge him as a Saint - no trashing here) starts with the divine essence, defined in neo-platonic terms of "simplicity" and the like, and then proceeds to the Person's only after. The Persons are thereby subsumed into the essence, simplicity, etc. This logical (i.e. philosophical) constraint leads quite naturally to the Filioque. The East (generally) begins it's theology non-philosophically, with the Three Divine Persons. The West (generally) begins philosophically, with or similar to St. Augustine. This is one of those deep tendencies that is very difficult to account for "terminologically", and is a important point of disagreement even though it has been abused (i.e. those on the west arguing that it is not so, ‘dyspeptic Greek's’ using it to explain everything, etc. etc.)...

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Here's some commentary by Fr. Thomas Hopko, who seems to me to express both a strong desire for unity and a pragmatism about its likelihood.
What the Catholics Must Do For Unity

What the Orthodox Must Do<<<

I do not disagree with anything Fr. Thomas has written. In fact, it closely mirrors much of what I have said myself.

[Gene Godbold]

Christopher wrote: The Persons are thereby subsumed into the essence, simplicity, etc. This logical (i.e. philosophical) constraint leads quite naturally to the Filioque.

I may not have the philosophical chops to handle this, but I don't see how the members of the Trinity being one in essence leads to the Filioque. Could you walk me (us) through this?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>> This logical (i.e. philosophical) constraint leads quite naturally to the Filioque. <<<

This sounds more like the fevered ravings of John Romanides than the fevered ravings of Christopher.

[Christopher]

" perhaps it would be good for the sake of fellow-Christ believers to come to these discussions clothed in a little more humility....My having singled out a few Orthodox commenters in this thread is not meant to imply that they have a monopoly on arrogance; the supply is generously spread among all Christians. I think these blogging discussions would be even more interesting if the arrogant ones would wear their knowledge and convictions a little more lightly."

I would respond in two ways:

First, these discussions are by necessity a bit technical, and have a lot of history behind them. Thus, there is a lot of "A is true", followed closely by "incorrect! A is false, however B is true". Partly to save time, partly because I believe it to be manipulative, I don't indulge in the long winded historical style that Stuart uses. While he sounds like your friendly neighborhood professor, I assure you his reading of history is highly selective, more propaganda and persuasion than history textbook. He has an agenda, I disagree with that agenda.

Second, I think (perhaps) you are pushing a sort of "feminization" of these discussions. Of course, I am defiantly more interested in the content, and not too interested stepping on eggshells to avoid hurting anyone's feelings, which too often passes for "humility" these days. My wife assures me this is a personal fault, so I apologize. I assure you, she is doing her best to teach me to play nicely...;)

[David Gray]

>Second, I think (perhaps) you are pushing a sort of "feminization" of these discussions.

As someone who is hostile to the feminization of these discussions I think you are incorrect.

>Of course, I am defiantly more interested in the content, and not too interested stepping on eggshells to avoid hurting anyone's feelings

I too am interested in content but one should never offend another unnecessarily. Sometimes it is necessary.

[Michael Martin]

Stuart,
I don't know what some of Orthodox brethren are complaining about--you seem downright polite and humble in this thread. None of your ascerbic wit. Those guys are lucky!
It seems, however, that as long as we argue for divisions, we will have them.
Of course, I'm on Stuart's side on this one, being an Eastern Rite Catholic and all. We are Orthodox--we're just in communion with Rome. It's not that big of a deal--but it is. My pastor, a convert from the Greek Orthodox Church (his father, grandfather, all of his brothers were or are Greek Orthodox priests--and those living have not spoken to him in the 50+ years since his conversion)put it this way when speaking to my brother-in-law, a convert from Protestantism to Orthodoxy, "The only difference is that we pray for the Pope."
I pray for Church unity on a daily basis, as I hope all of us do. I am willing to let the Holy Spirit work out the details. But some of the clannish behavior exhibited on this thread makes the Martins (no relation) and Coys look downright civilized!

[Christopher]

"This sounds more like the fevered ravings of John Romanides than the fevered ravings of Christopher."

There you go again. Next, you will be identifying anyone who disagrees with you with the KKK, Nazis, and Joseph McCarthy. Ecumenical activist does not go far enough. Is there some sort of Vatican hit squad I should be aware of? ;)

Go ahead, re-re-interpret St. Augustine for us...

[James A. Altena]

Christopher is simply falling back on convenient hackneyed stereotypes about Augustine, the filioque, and Anglicans. I have yet to see him (or any other Orthodox polemicist on the filioque clause I have encountered) address the classic Western scholarly study of the filioque clause, E. B. (Edward Bouverie) Pusey's typically profound work "On the Clause 'And the Son' in Regard to the Eastern Church and the Bonn Conference" [1876]." [Pusey was equally devout and learned, and his translations of Eastern fathers such as St. Ephraim the Syrian are still used by English-speaking Orthodox today.]

There are some people whose notion of truth primarily consists of self-vindication by incessant misrepresentation of the beliefs of others. It exemplifies what G. B. Shaw termed "the resolute lying of honest men" -- people who have no intention to be anything other that truthful, but are so utterly and unshakeably self-absorbed in their cherished caricatures of others that nothing will move them to open their minds and hearts to consider even the remote possibility that these might wrong or flawed, and so they persist in making false assertions. In their own minds they already know the truth, and know it perfectly, on any point they cherish, and have no need to rethink these ever again.

I haven't always agreed with Stuart [is that news? :-)], but my hat is off to him here.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>There you go again. Next, you will be identifying anyone who disagrees with you with the KKK, Nazis, and Joseph McCarthy. Ecumenical activist does not go far enough. Is there some sort of Vatican hit squad I should be aware of? ;)<<<

Why would you associate Romanides with the Nazis? He was, by all accounts, a good priest, albeit he had his blind spots regarding the Latin Church.

>>>Go ahead, re-re-interpret St. Augustine for us...<<<

You're doing a pretty good job as it is--and making David Hart's point for him.

[Christopher]

Michael says:

(quoting his priest) "The only difference is that we pray for the Pope."

*sigh* Do 'Eastern Rite' folks REALLY believe such things? If so, I understand a bit better those Orthodox who say that uniates are fundamentally subversive...

[DGP]

>>I do not disagree with anything Fr. Thomas has written. In fact, it closely mirrors much of what I have said myself.<<

Oh, good grief. Are you serious? Many of the liturgical and governmental changes Fr. Thomas insists upon are tantamount to the denial of any distinctively Western Christianity. They reflect the very abuse of power which Fr. Thomas' recommendations are meant to preclude -- except that they reverse the tables, and require the Church in the West to conform to the East.

Beyond this, the recommendations are pastorally, if not quite logically, inconsistent. The Pope of Rome is to "use his presidential authority to guarantee a spirit of freedom, openness, respect and love in and among all churches and Christians, and indeed all human beings," but he is also to "travel extensively," "master electronic media to serve his ministry in proclaiming Christ's Gospel, propagating Christian faith, promoting ethical behavior, protecting human rights, and securing justice and peace for all people."

It's easy to put these two requirements down next to each other in print, but it's an unlikely combination. As inspiring as recent popes have been in their pastoral travels, their missionary labors are not unrelated to a kind of centralization still taking place in the Latin (and arguably the entire Catholic) Church. Conversely, a Pope so exquisitely sensitive to the freedom of particular Churches is not going to be exercising much of a ministry of universal encouragement.

To me, this reads like some of those Anglican fantasies: "We want an authority who will preserve us in perfect unity and when necessary correct all the brethren, except me."

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>"The only difference is that we pray for the Pope."<<<

Considering that the Orthodox here seem to believe he is terribly misguided, you would think they would pray for him, too, in accordance with the instructions of St. Basil:

"Remember, O Lord, those who are in need of your great tenderness of heart, and those who love us, and those who hate us, and those who have asked us, unworthy though we be, to pray for them".

[James A. Altena]

Dear DPG,

I hope that your remark is not intended as a statement about traditonal Anglicans, as opposed to modern-day heretics.

[Christopher]

James says:

"Christopher is simply falling back on convenient hackneyed stereotypes about Augustine, the filioque, and Anglicans."

Really? Pardon my ignorance, but I am simply unaware that the Anglican's have contributed significantly to this controversy at all. Please tell me how I have inadvertently imitated a stereotype?

"There are some people whose notion of truth primarily consists of....In their own minds they already know the truth, and know it perfectly, on any point they cherish, and have no need to rethink these ever again."

You know, this is a bit too easy to assert. Someone disagrees with you? Assert an ill will on their part. I admitted that the RC may be in a theological/doctrinal "revolution" of sorts, what more do you what? (or does this have something to do with Anglicanism?)

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Really? Pardon my ignorance, but I am simply unaware that the Anglican's have contributed significantly to this controversy at all. Please tell me how I have inadvertently imitated a stereotype?<<<

Anglicans rediscovered patristics in the West. They were doing it back when RCs thought the Fathers began and ended with Thomas Aquinas.

[Christopher]

"Considering that the Orthodox here seem to believe he is terribly misguided"

There you go again. It's not personal as in "who does this Ratzinger think he is!?!?". It has something to do with the Great Schism, and all that. And yes, I do consciously keep the RC and it's pope in my prayers occasionally, though I confess not nearly enough...

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>There you go again. It's not personal as in "who does this Ratzinger think he is!?!?". It has something to do with the Great Schism, and all that. And yes, I do consciously keep the RC and it's pope in my prayers occasionally, though I confess not nearly enough...<<<

Just when did this "Great Schism" (I can hear Master Yoda speaking: "Schism not make one great!") begin, in your mind? What was it really about? How solid was this wall that divides us?

Your own views, Christopher, not those of some dyspeptic Greek.

[Christopher]

Gene,

The argument goes like this: St. Augustine employs a certain 'ordo theologiae'. He begins with the essence of God, then moves to the attributes, and only at the end considers the persons. This has the result of a circular like logic being used, always trying to resolve itself in simplicity, so that St. Augustine can say:

"Because both the Father is a spirit and the Son is a spirit, and because the Father is Holy and the Son is Holy, therefore the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are on God, and certainly God is Holy, and God is spirit, the Trinity can be called also the Holy Spirit" (On the Trinity 7.6.11)

Here, the Person of the Holy Spirit becomes the principle of unity, the essence of which is to bring the circular logic back together so the simplicity is preserved. There are many other examples. The best summary of all this that I have read is the introduction of his translation of Saint Photius' "The Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit" by Joseph P. Farrell. Not sure if it is even in print...

[Christopher]

"Anglicans rediscovered patristics in the West. They were doing it back when RCs thought the Fathers began and ended with Thomas Aquinas."

Good for them! I am still confused, how does discussing the real and present differences between the Orthodox and RC church a "falling back on convenient hackneyed stereotypes about Augustine, the filioque, and Anglicans"??

[DGP]

>>I hope that your remark is not intended as a statement about traditonal Anglicans, as opposed to modern-day heretics.<<

It was intended principally for the heretics who nevertheless retain a fondness for unity. However, it applies to traditional Anglicans and the rest of us Christians insofar as we share the fantasy of unity without accountability.

[Christopher]

DGP quotes Fr. Thomas Hopko as saying;

(The Pope)"but he is also to "travel extensively," "master electronic media to serve his ministry in proclaiming Christ's Gospel, propagating Christian faith, promoting ethical behavior, protecting human rights, and securing justice and peace for all people.""

LOL! Part of the "let no Pope be left behind" act that all Popes in the future will get a laptop! And how about "securing justice and peace for all people"!! Some one bring that man a guitar and tie dye!!

Tell you what, if the Pope "secures justice and peace for all people", I run (not walk) to the nearest Latin parish, convert, and say offer to say a thousand "Can't we all just get along" each day as part of my penance...;)

p.s. I am wondering when the editors are going to shut down this thread…

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Here, the Person of the Holy Spirit becomes the principle of unity, the essence of which is to bring the circular logic back together so the simplicity is preserved. There are many other examples. The best summary of all this that I have read is the introduction of his translation of Saint Photius' "The Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit" by Joseph P. Farrell. Not sure if it is even in print...<<<

Funny, how with all of Photios' erudition, to say nothing of the fact that he was itching to pick a fight, he never got around to pointing out the errors of Augustine. Moreover, it's rather strange that this argument over Augustinian vs. Cappodocian Trinitarian theology never seems to have popped up amidst all the Catholic-Orthodox polemics, until quite late in the day. Running out of things about which to argue, I would imagine.

By the way, thanks for telling us that your knowledge of Augustine is mainly derived from the introduction of a translation of a work that does not directly concern Augustine.

[kate]

Christopher,
(Perhaps) you are mistakenly missing the valid distinction between humility and feminization? Who said anything about eggshells and what passes for humility? I care about content or I wouldn't be reading this blog.

There is never a good reason -- agenda or not, haste or not -- to treat fellow-Christ believers with less than kindness and humility. How to define kindess and humility in a blog, you will decide for yourself. But I would suggest that you not give yourself lame excuses (please).

What does the Lord require of us? To do justice, love kindness, and walk humbly with Him. Talk to Micah about feminization.

[Ethan Cordray]

>>p.s. I am wondering when the editors are going to shut down this thread…<<

Shut it down? It hasn't even gotten good and nasty yet! :-)

And besides, discussions like this one lie close to the heart of the Touchstone project: gently picking at the old controversies, seeing how much of our division is based on unhealed divisions and how much comes from outdated stereotypes and prejudices. Like a kid with a scab.

[Christopher]

"Funny, how with all of Photios' erudition, to say nothing of the fact that he was itching to pick a fight, he never got around to pointing out the errors of Augustine."

Ha! Now your reaching. Here is a trivia question for the esteemed professor Koehl: Who DID Photius explicitly name in his "Mystagogy"? Also, how many of his contemporaries did he reference in the footnotes?

"By the way, thanks for telling us that your knowledge of Augustine is mainly derived from the introduction of a translation of a work that does not directly concern Augustine."

Ha! Ok my esteemed professor. Let's get down to business. I will match your quotes of Augustine, with one of my own, limiting debate to his view of the divine simplicity (can't get all crazy and talk about most anything ;). Which translation(s) do you wish to use (I only own one, but I am even willing to purchase another on your recommendation)?

OR, does your knowledge of Augustine come mostly from ecumenical conferences of various “hyper-unionists” (which you sponsor none the less), position papers, and the like?

[Christopher]

"Moreover, it's rather strange that this argument over Augustinian vs. Cappodocian Trinitarian theology never seems to have popped up amidst all the Catholic-Orthodox polemics, until quite late in the day."

Sooooo, Saint Photius is "late in the day"? Hum, I better check those footnotes again...;)

[Christopher]

Kate says:

"There is never a good reason -- agenda or not, haste or not -- to treat fellow-Christ believers with less than kindness and humility. How to define kindess and humility in a blog, you will decide for yourself. But I would suggest that you not give yourself lame excuses (please)."

Well, which is it Kate, do I get to define it or no? You are reproving me, but keep to yourself when and where I (or other Orthodox, your not clear - do you include Stuart as an "Orthodox"?) have been less then kind and less than humble?

I ask because over the years that one man's "vigorous debate" is another man's "hate filled scold". I think there might be as many answers here as there are people...

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Sooooo, Saint Photius is "late in the day"? Hum, I better check those footnotes again...;)<<<

Photios is late in the day. Moreover, Photios saw no problems with being in communion with the Church of Rome. He died in communion with the Church of Rome. If you read Dvornik, you would know this.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>“hyper-unionists”<<<

Is that better or worse than "uniate"? But, who cares? It is clear you have never bothered to read a single word I have written with an open mind.

By the way, this year's conference is June 18-21. Can I put you down for a reservation?

[Christopher]

"It is clear you have never bothered to read a single word I have written with an open mind."

This is just so cheap. Do not buy into the One Big Misunderstanding theory, for reasons stated, and one does "not have an open mind"?!?! I don't think that's the ticket to ecumenical success, or unity, or persuasion of any sort. You should stick with pedantic Stuart :)

"By the way, this year's conference is June 18-21. Can I put you down for a reservation?"

Nah. Not hyper-unionist enough, and I don't have a career in academic theology, or a Church to beat into submission...well, maybe if Fr. Hopko is there, and I can bring my guitar...been several years since I played ,but I think Fr. Hopko might be able to bring it out of me ...:)

[Christopher]

"He died in communion with the Church of Rome."

Ah, but you leave out the interesting part. WHY did he die in communion with Rome professor?

[Christopher]

And WHO does Photius mention by name, Professor?

[Yaknyeti]

Christopher - Your arguments against the One Big Mistake theory aren't convincing. Unfortunately, to convince me, you'd have to elaborate on why the Filioque makes a significant theological difference in the life of the church. I'll accept that the RCs went about the wrong way of adding it to the Creed, but the theological importance of it (apart from conforming to one's personal theories about the nature of God) has eluded me. You are welcome to not open this Pandora's Box of discussion as well, of course, but will likely remain unpersuasive unless you do.

Which is easier? To say that two people/ groups misunderstood each other's point of view, or that one of those persons/ groups completely misunderstood the Truth? I have great faith in each person's ability to misunderstand the other and develop fascinating rationalizations of why his position is right and his opponent's (or his perception of his opponent's) position is wrong. I'm a Lutheran, and we've been doing it for 400 years. Have you read the Book of Concord? Half of it is spent arguing against RC positions (some of which either were or are not strictly what the RCs hold) and the rest is spent defending against RC misrepresentations of the Lutheran view. It's intermingled, of course, with solid theology and laudable devotion to the Word of God (yes, I am biased), but there's a lot of confusion on record from very intelligent, God-fearing men on both sides.

I also have great faith in a God who works with, around and despite the weaknesses of His servants. May He help His church - and us - sort all this out.

[kate]

Christopher,

I didn’t single you out for reproof, nor was I addressing my comments to you in particular, but since you asked:
“How else to respond to such tripe?? Where has Weigel been? Does he really understand so little of the history of the Schism? No wonder the Catholic speak of "two lungs" sounds so hollow to us Orthodox - with men like Weigel leading the charge, who needs the Devil?”

If you read what I said carefully, my initial comment was to remind all of us, but in this instance especially several Orthodox commenters, of the virtue of humility, which you managed to slam by equating it with some shallow niceness, to say nothing of insulting women by characterizing that shallowness as somehow a feminizing of the discourse. Nothing manly about humility, is there?

But humility is not a matter of surface niceness. It pertains to the fact that the body of Christ is fragmented, which is a tragedy and a scandal – something that should grieve all of us, even as we recognize that it will never be achieved by our own pitiful efforts.
Perhaps I’ve misread your and some others’ comments, but I haven’t glimpsed embedded in them a longing, a desire “that they may all be one.” Instead, there is an undercurrent of disdain for even the hope of unity, something that exhibits, I think, a lack of humility. Stuart Koehl, as regular readers know well, expresses himself strongly and is not about to surrender his most cherished beliefs to some wishy-washy ecumenism. But he gets it: until we have lived up to John 17, we ought to practice humility.

You do get to define it for yourself, Christopher. If you are convinced of your own humility, I humbly allow that I could have been mistaken.

[Rob Grano]

Farrell's edition of the 'Mystagogy' is available from Amazon, and probably from Eighth Day as well. I haven't read it, but his argument also appears in the appendix to his book "Free Choice in Maximus the Confessor," which I have read but is, in fact, out of print. A couple of Orthodox bloggers, extremely intelligent guys and generally quite charitable (Perry Robinson and Daniel Jones), have taken this issue up with Catholic PhD's Michael Liccione and Scott Carson on a couple different blogs. Christopher is not just blowing smoke here. This is an issue worth examining, and the philosophy involved goes deeper and further back than the Filioque. (It also can often get quite arcane and much of it is over my head.) Indeed, I hope this issue comes up in the upcoming "Orthodoxy & Augustine" conference at Fordham next month, which unfortunately I won't be able to attend.

Christopher -- although I haven't explored this issue deeply enough to come down on one side or the other yet, I do agree with you concerning its validity. It would be very interesting to see Perry R. and David Hart go back and forth on it.

Stuart said, "Moreover, it's rather strange that this argument over Augustinian vs. Cappodocian Trinitarian theology never seems to have popped up amidst all the Catholic-Orthodox polemics, until quite late in the day. Running out of things about which to argue, I would imagine."

Actually Stuart, it seems to me that Farrell, et al., may actually be doing ecumenical dialogue a service by blowing past all the surface accretions and getting to the real root of the theological differences between E and W, which may in fact be philosophical. As I said above, I'm not sure if their objections to St. Augustine's thought on this issue are valid, but it does seem to me that they are worth examining, precisely because so little work seems to have been done in this area.

[Christopher]

Yaknyeti,

Notice what Rob says in his last post. The Filoque is systematic of a much larger issue - how the Church theologizes, how it comes to Doctrine and what it means, and indeed what Revelation is and what it is not. It points to the fact that what divides the Orthodox from the RC is not a misunderstood set of languages, confusing words long forgotten, sociological and political styles, "modes" of expression, and all that other presumptions of the One Big Misunderstanding theory. The Filoque is significant because to get to the Filoque, on has to make some fundamental theological mistakes from the Orthodox perspective. If one can get there without making mistakes on the RC side, then that means they theologize from a different set of assumptions and in a different way. Since they get to a very different place, at what point do we admit to ourselves that this is way beyond a "mode of expression", that the churches actually believe different things?

Well, that point was reached long ago. Up until the One Big Misunderstanding, it was admitted on both sides that there are significant differences. Indeed we have not had communion with each other for almost a thousand years. I mentioned upstream that the One Big Misunderstanding theory treats all our Christian ancestors rather arrogantly, in effect saying to them "You were wrong all for all those centuries. Now we have come along and studied a little sociology and political theory, we have discovered it's all in the use of terms - it's a style question. Today, we try harder to listen, and when we do, it all turns out fine in the end.". So all of our Christian ancestors somehow missed the Christian virtue of patiently listening to someone?

Look, I understand I am swimming upstream here. Our whole culture, our whole modern inclination is toward all the presumptions of the One Big Misunderstanding theory. It has all the elements of modernism tucked neatly into it: political and sociological theory, built in guilt about the scandal of Christian disunity, a certain high minded attitude toward our well meaning but rather ignorant ancestors (they used leaches after all), elite university specialists re-re-reinterpreting terms and our past, men like Bishop Ware who travels writes and travels extensively and in whom we put our hope to grasp all the subtleties of both East and West. Even attractive little quips that Stuart has quoted like "How many Orthodox does it take to change a lightbulb? Change? We NEVER change!" So it is quite easy to dismiss a criticism.

To come back to your point, as to whether the Filoque makes a difference in the life of the Church, the answer is yes.

[Ethan Cordray]

Christopher, it seems to me in your last post that you're treating the Filioque as evidence of a fundamental difference, rather than a cause of difference, as Yaknyeti requested. I don't necessarily dispute the point you made, but it doesn't answer the question asked.

Does the Filioque itself cause problems, or is it just a result of other problems?

[Christopher]

"Does the Filioque itself cause problems, or is it just a result of other problems?"

Well it's both. In so far as it is part of a core statement of belief (the creed), it is a problem in of itself. In so far that it's problematic structure is built upon earlier problems (i.e. a problematic way of theologizing about the Holy Trinity, which is Revelation itself)it is a result.

[Yaknyeti]

Christopher,

Thanks for the response, but you're just deferring the question. From what you and Rob just posted, it appears that the Filioque itself is not the problem. Rather, the underlying theology of divine simplicity is the problem. Fair enough. Can you list for me other places where this theological divergence makes a difference in the life of the church?

I'm willing to accept that there may be significant differences here. However, if the differences are things that very few people actually understand in a group of well-educated laymen, I can't help but question them. I mean no disrespect to our ancestors in the faith; I consider them to be only as fallible as I consider us today. And, as Stuart pointed out, these theological differences existed before the Filioque controversy arose. Was the unity of the church at that point simply Another Big Mistake? Or was it a possibility that we can resurrect today if we can work through the political hash surrounding the Filioque?

[Christopher]

Yanknyeti,

Well no, the Filoque is itself a problem. It is built upon other problems, but it express structure itself that is incorrect - which leads to other problems. Later, you have Thomas Aquinas trying to close the logical circle that St. Augustine left open. This leads to further divergence from Orthodoxy.

I think what might be hard to grasp here is the organic nature of this issue. Simply because 'educated layman' do not take the time or are encouraged to understand the technical details , does not mean that these difference do not have an organic effect on the whole life of the Church. You can not have a Balaam (in the end a RC) disagreeing with a St. Gregory Palamas (Orthodox Saint) on the nature of God without an organic, fundamental difference in the whole way of theologizing about God. These are not MERE technical differences that mean little. These difference are not MERE "political hash" that point to the same fallibility that has always been with us.

As far as earlier unity being a facade, I don't think so. Certainly up until the Schism, you had signs that west was grappling with these things. But St. Augustine is often pointed to as a "watershed" event - someone who defiantly displayed these errors and whose subsequent influence can hardly be overstated.

Now, as a protestant, with protestant notions of the "church visible", "church invisible" and the like, it may be very difficult to understand the Orthodox and the traditional RC notions of Church, Doctrine, etc...

[James A. Altena]

Christopher,

My reference to Anglican stereotypes refered to your feeble attempt to insult Stuart with accusations of compromising theological truth for the sake of visible unity as being "Anglican like."

If a non-Orthodox blogger were in the same manner indiscriminately to tar all Orthodox as phyletists, and asserted phyletism to be an essential principle of Orthodox theology or practice, you'd be screaming bloody murder.

You call Stuart (and perhaps think of me as) a long-winded historian. But at we least put forward actual evidence that can be verified or disproved, and arguments that can be analyzed as sound or unsound, in many of our posts. You, by contrast, merely make unsupported assertions, but then demand that those be taken as being of equal worth. They are not.

Anglican have contributed significantly to the discussion over the filioque in history. I just gave you the reference to Pusey. Your personal ignorance of Anglicanism is not an objective measure of its historical contribution to the topic.

[Christopher]

"If a non-Orthodox blogger were in the same manner indiscriminately to tar all Orthodox as phyletists, and asserted phyletism to be an essential principle of Orthodox theology or practice, you'd be screaming bloody murder."

Too true.

You are correct James, I offended by my use of the phrase and for that I apologize. I was thinking of Stuart's use of "modes of (theological) expression", etc. It does have similarities with my limited understanding of Anglican notions of Church, Catholicity, etc. I don't think it is an accident that it is the protestant's on this blog that seem most attracted to the One Big Misunderstanding or Stuart's way of resolving church unity.

Question: How does an Anglican come down on the Filioque?

[Steve Nicoloso]

It's awfully late in the day to ask, but... even if we (Latins) grant that the Filoque, and the (seemingly arcane) underpinnings upon which it allegedly rests, changes (even somehow for the worse) how the Church lives her life, does small-o orthodox faith only permit one way to do theology? I.e., why is that the true and unassailable stumbling block to unity? Which is to say that the Orthodox may very well have a corner on the market of "apostolic", but the Catholics have a surer claim to "one" and "catholic" insofar as they really are a big tent, when it comes to "local variation". Neither has much claim to "holy", but 2/4 beats 1/4.

[Christopher]

"does small-o orthodox faith only permit one way to do theology"

Sometimes a difference is a "mystery", or something that does not rise to the level of doctrine, or maybe a local variation if you will. But what if a difference is a real contradiction? When is a difference important? Does the history and theology of the East and West suggest that the differences were not important, or significant?

"...Neither has much claim to "holy", but 2/4 beats 1/4."

Again, does Orthodox or traditional Catholic notions of what the Church is, allow such a calculus? Is this not a very protestant way of thinking about Church as Church? Your not suggesting that for the Orthodox and Catholics to resolve their differences, we ultimately will simply have to accept a protestant notion of Church are you? Sounds triumphalistic to me...;)

Heck, if we are simply counting, I say we put together a baseball game with Orthodox bishops on one team and Catholic bishops on the other. Winner takes all!!! ;) :)

[Rob Grano]

"does small-o orthodox faith only permit one way to do theology? I.e., why is that the true and unassailable stumbling block to unity?"

Steve -- I think that this is exactly one of the things that needs to be asked. If there is a true divide here, is that divide of the 'stuff' of the faith or is it theologoumenon? What Christopher and the theologians he's reading are saying that is it is a defining 'de fide' issue. I'm not yet convinced of that but it seems that it should at least be examined to see if the claim has merit or not.

[Steve Nicoloso]

No, Christopher, as a partisan (of which we all must be), I affirm all 4. The "one holy catholic and apostolic" church is my own... Of this I am certain... with the certainty that comes from faith. But from the outside looking in, some claims are more dubious than others. I'm a recent convert. I could've gone either way. If there were an English speaking EO church two blocks from my house, I'd be Orthodox today... and probably stressing a lot less about NFP... But the fact is that my parish (the one two blocks from my house) is RC. It made the decision easy.

Now I'm sure that this notion that it could have gone either way pisses off any hardcore partisan (the uber-Orthodox as well as the RC ultramontanists), but has not locale mattered more than doctrine for about 99.99% (how many 9s?) of all "Christians" who've ever lived? It is not normatively up to me (or you) to question authority and make sure all her ducks are in a row before I accede to her demands, it is up to me to accept her and then to obey her. But if I go 'round cherry picking my authorities, well then, who's the one in charge?

[Ethan Cordray]

>>Question: How does an Anglican come down on the Filioque?<<

If I may be permitted to answer: Every which a'way. :-)

Or more technically: it strikes some of us in the Protestant camp as being arrogant to either dogmatically assert the clause or dogmaticaly deny it. The particular relation of the Spirit to the other members may be too mysterious to either require or rule out such a formulation.

This means, to me, that it ought to be omitted from the Creed as a matter of adiaphora, but that the belief itself shouldn't necessarily be a sticking point for schism.

Historically, it seems that it has been included in the Prayer Book in keeping with the Western Catholic tradition.

I'll leave it to James to say something more historically detailed. And keep in mind that I'm just a "wanna be" Anglican, so I don't necessarily know what I'm talking about.

[Steve Nicoloso]

But back to point about can there be more than one way to do theology... Is it de fide (for anyone) that dogma cannot morph and grow and adapt, be expounded upon in a dogmatic way, as needed? The Filoque, the IC, the Assumption, many/most of the contentious issues do not deny Orthodox dogma (of which I'm aware at least) save for the "dogma" that dogma cannot grow or morph or be expounded upon in a dogmatic way. And why should it be that it cannot? It took 2-300+ years for the Church to "dogmatize" (i.e., to wake up and smell the coffee of) the hypostatic union of Christ, for God's sake! (pun intended) Why could it not take 1800 years to for the Church to realize (similarly waking up and smelling coffee) that under some extreme circumstances (perhaps unforeseen by the Fathers), the Bishop of Rome might speak infallibly from himself alone to strengthen his brethren?

I'm just asking... because it seems the development of doctrine, as a per se different way of "doing theology", is really at the core of the conflict... at least with Christopher. And I'm entirely unconvinced that "development of doctrine" would be ruled out biblically or by the Fathers, who were (I am often told) not nearly as unanimous as any of us would like.

[Ethan Cordray]

>>Heck, if we are simply counting, I say we put together a baseball game with Orthodox bishops on one team and Catholic bishops on the other. Winner takes all!!! ;) :)<<

A dangerous proposition, Christopher. Watch out for Catholic Latin America!

Incidentally, I prefer my food fight approach, but we could make it a combination. Anyone have a suggestion of something to make it a best of three series? :-)

[Gina Mosko]

I read Fr. Hopko's commentary not so much as laying down the law as being the bearer of bad news: these are the things that must change before the idea of restoring communion will have a chance in the broad Orthodox world, which must comprise those all along the ecumenical spectrum. After all, you can't start one schism to heal another.

As for the filioque, Vladimir Lossky explains that this reveals a fundamental difference in how East vs. West views the inter-relationship of the Trinity. The nature of God can hardly be thought of as an arcane or sideline matter. This difference comes up to the surface once again in the teaching on the energies of God. As I understand it, as a novice and layperson, these are two holes made by the same mole.

Stuart, it is disingenuous to say that Eastern Catholics have no differences to the Orthodox except praying for the Pope. It requires an ecclesiological shift to say that though you disagree with the Latin church on these matters, you will come under her leadership and in communion anyway. As I asked earlier, what is formal unity without natural unity? The Oriental and Eastern Orthodox have the natural unity, and still ecclesiological questions remain. How much moreso for unity between Rome and the Orthodox.

I pray for the Pope. Any Christian, in view of the Catholic Church's prominence and power, would be unwise to neglect this.

[Steve Nicoloso]

And BTW, Rome does NOT (AFAIK) "dogmatically assert" the Filioque clause. Just ask Stuart (who I agree is far too sanguine on this subject, but that's his partisanship, which is good and right even when wrong). But in fact, Rome is being the "flexible" one by allowing local variation play a significant role in the liturgy of rites distinct from her own. But Rome can't win for losing, since it is this very "flexibility" the pisses off the Uber-Orthodox so much. I'm not saying I like it, I'd very much like to see the Pope to put the smackdown on all Bishops of all rites who disagree with him in the slightest (and on Stuart for being "squishy" on contraception). But the fact is that Rome is a bigger tent than that... and for that too, it appears, she is roundly criticized. Too dogmatic? Or too flexible? Which is it today?

[Rob Grano]

'And BTW, Rome does NOT (AFAIK) "dogmatically assert" the Filioque clause'

She may not assert the clause but she definitely asserts the dogma; the East has been told that we need not say it in the Creed so long as we don't reject the doctrine. The question is whether the Eastern and Western understandings of the Trinity are reconciliable or not.

[James A. Altena]

Christopher,

A gracious reply on your part to my post, and fair question. Ethan, with wit and pith, captures the basics. I will try to post something a bit more detailed by the weekend (I don't know if I will have time for something substantive before then).

[Gene Godbold]

I'm with Ethan on the filioque. But I would point out that the Holy Spirit must proceed from the Father. The question is whether He also proceeds from the Son. Augustine certainly thought so, but I'd agree with the Orthodox that his reasoning rests on philosophical principles that don't seem, uh, intrinsic to the Biblical worldview.