I've admitted before my sympathies for the Orthodox.
Many Catholics I know, of the general "Renegade Trads" persuasion (that is to say, of people sympathetic with traditionalism, but who aren't fundamentalists) also have such sympathies.
But where do they come from? I think part of it is a correctionist impulse against the excesses of unbalanced Western emphases; the Church would be more balanced "breathing with both lungs."
The Orthodox certainly are traditional liturgically, and yet their accommodation to things like the vernacular means they have not suffered the same decay into vestigiality the Roman Rite did (before entirely collapsing after Vatican II). They are smaller, and so can have a more vibrant community life that the big-box Roman parishes of thousands simply cannot. Their more pragmatic model of a married secular priesthood also is invaluable in facilitating this, and is one of the biggest draws of the Orthodox model for me. And their ecclesiology is, of course, much less hyper-centralized and more consensus-based and collegial than authoritarian.
However, I also think, in all this...there is a certain degree of pure exoticism in the appeal, and a sort of romanticizing of primitivism, for the Latins who "sympathize" with Orthodoxy. Sympathy is one thing, but it can only go so far.
In truth, Western sympathizing with the Orthodox often seems to come from a quest to find the "purest" Apostolic Christianity, to find the one that is preserved in the earliest possible vintage, that represents the most ancient snapshot of the Faith, and thus, it is assumed, must give us some idea of what is truly essential and native to the Church, and what is a later accretion (or even corruption).
However, I've been thinking this logic actually makes no sense. A "snapshot" or "preservation" implies something that has basically become frozen as a museum piece, cut-off from further growth in an anachronistic stasis. Indeed, this sort of primitivist logic often leads people who first sympathize with Eastern Orthodoxy to later progress (or regress) "even farther back" to Oriental Orthodoxy (the "monophysites") and finally to the ("Nestorian") Assyrian Church of the East. Going from accepting 21 councils, to accepting 7, to accepting 3, to accepting 2. (There's just an assumption here that Protestantism is an ahistorical anomaly, and is not truly Apostolic Christianity, though some will wink at the Anglicans.)
But is this really what we want? Do we want a Church which "stopped" after 2 councils, or 3, or 7? Wouldn't we rather have a Church which goes back as far as these but which has never "stopped" at any point, which is still having councils, still evolving, still reforming, etc?
Yes, there may be a primitivist, conservationist, "traditionalist" appeal to the other...but when I look at Orthodoxy compared to everything (good and bad) that Catholicism is, I can only think that, for all its merits and holiness, Orthodoxy simply does not seem to have the same sweeping historical vision, the same adaptability, the same catholicity as the Catholic Church. Forgetting even ethnophyletic tendencies, I just simply do not see the Orthodox churches as having been the same sort of constant and major player in the narrative of world history that Catholicism has been. (Maybe if Russia had won the Cold War...)
No, there are times when I get so fed up with Catholic antics that I look longingly at the "purer" Orthodox, but then when I look at the big "story" of history...I can only see the Catholic Church as truly expansive, truly universal in its outlook, and "there" at all the important moments of history, taking to herself all that is good from every age; the truly humanistic institution.
Many Catholics I know, of the general "Renegade Trads" persuasion (that is to say, of people sympathetic with traditionalism, but who aren't fundamentalists) also have such sympathies.
But where do they come from? I think part of it is a correctionist impulse against the excesses of unbalanced Western emphases; the Church would be more balanced "breathing with both lungs."
The Orthodox certainly are traditional liturgically, and yet their accommodation to things like the vernacular means they have not suffered the same decay into vestigiality the Roman Rite did (before entirely collapsing after Vatican II). They are smaller, and so can have a more vibrant community life that the big-box Roman parishes of thousands simply cannot. Their more pragmatic model of a married secular priesthood also is invaluable in facilitating this, and is one of the biggest draws of the Orthodox model for me. And their ecclesiology is, of course, much less hyper-centralized and more consensus-based and collegial than authoritarian.
However, I also think, in all this...there is a certain degree of pure exoticism in the appeal, and a sort of romanticizing of primitivism, for the Latins who "sympathize" with Orthodoxy. Sympathy is one thing, but it can only go so far.
In truth, Western sympathizing with the Orthodox often seems to come from a quest to find the "purest" Apostolic Christianity, to find the one that is preserved in the earliest possible vintage, that represents the most ancient snapshot of the Faith, and thus, it is assumed, must give us some idea of what is truly essential and native to the Church, and what is a later accretion (or even corruption).
However, I've been thinking this logic actually makes no sense. A "snapshot" or "preservation" implies something that has basically become frozen as a museum piece, cut-off from further growth in an anachronistic stasis. Indeed, this sort of primitivist logic often leads people who first sympathize with Eastern Orthodoxy to later progress (or regress) "even farther back" to Oriental Orthodoxy (the "monophysites") and finally to the ("Nestorian") Assyrian Church of the East. Going from accepting 21 councils, to accepting 7, to accepting 3, to accepting 2. (There's just an assumption here that Protestantism is an ahistorical anomaly, and is not truly Apostolic Christianity, though some will wink at the Anglicans.)
But is this really what we want? Do we want a Church which "stopped" after 2 councils, or 3, or 7? Wouldn't we rather have a Church which goes back as far as these but which has never "stopped" at any point, which is still having councils, still evolving, still reforming, etc?
Yes, there may be a primitivist, conservationist, "traditionalist" appeal to the other...but when I look at Orthodoxy compared to everything (good and bad) that Catholicism is, I can only think that, for all its merits and holiness, Orthodoxy simply does not seem to have the same sweeping historical vision, the same adaptability, the same catholicity as the Catholic Church. Forgetting even ethnophyletic tendencies, I just simply do not see the Orthodox churches as having been the same sort of constant and major player in the narrative of world history that Catholicism has been. (Maybe if Russia had won the Cold War...)
No, there are times when I get so fed up with Catholic antics that I look longingly at the "purer" Orthodox, but then when I look at the big "story" of history...I can only see the Catholic Church as truly expansive, truly universal in its outlook, and "there" at all the important moments of history, taking to herself all that is good from every age; the truly humanistic institution.
10 comments:
I think I'd agree that a lot of the love of Byzantine (and Coptic, Assyrian/Chaldean, Nasrani, etc.) Christianity has a lot to do with both a genuine love for them (they're really gorgeous traditions) as well as a romanticized notion of "The East" as if that automatically means "more ancient/original Christianity". I take issue with the latter sentiment because Rome is one of the most ancient centers of Christianity and there has been quite a bit of liturgical and theological development in the East.
That being said, I don't know that I would criticize the East as being unable to adapt or not having a sweeping vision. Until fairly recently in history, much of it was overrun by governments that varied between hostile and tolerant of Christianity (Islam and Communism).
The problem I have with the Eastern Orthodox (and to some extent the Oriental Orthodox, Assyrians, etc.) is when they consider their own rites to be the pinnacle of Christian expression.
I do agree that the Catholic Church has maintained the broadest outlook on the varied expressions of Christianity throughout history on the level of theory and often in practice. There are several glaring exceptions to be sure, both in history (the discouraging of the use of the Ambrosian, Mozarabic, and other Western rites) as well as the issues with the Eastern Catholic Churches (mandating or "encouraging" priestly celibacy, extensive tampering with liturgies, etc.).
All my issues with Rome's actions aside, she is really unique in at least attempting to maintain the diversity of the Church beyond simple ethnic/linguistic diversity. She is truly catholic and orthodox.
The entry itself does a disservice to Church ecclesiology, in that it equates Catholicism with the Latin Church, which IS a problem to begin with. By merely stating that they're quaint oddities, or rather "exotic" exceptions to the rule, it ignores the very real differences between the Churches, and their respective histories, Traditions, and developments. It's the same sentiments that promote that Eastern Catholics return, and preserve their patristic roots, whilst incentivizing that they conform to Latin ecclesiological standards, and praxis. If the East IS a parallel development (Not necessarily as regards to dogmas, and doctrines.) to the Church in the West,but within a distinct ethnographic context, then for all intents, and purposes it won't look anything like the Church in the West. Why the incessant call for that to be so ? If the Maronites never broke with Rome (Debatable), and the St.Thomas Christians didn't (Debatable), don't they essentially testify to the fact that a Church can remain in communion with the Petrine See, whilst still being true to it's roots ? Even if by Western standards that means that they're "primitive" ?
The same sentiments expressed therein, are the very ones that justify Romanizations/Latinizations for a Church that expresses the SAME orthodox belief, but does so from within a distinct Tradition. So while my argument concerns Eastern Catholics, realize that the very same arguments raised therein in relation to the Orthodox, would just as much apply to them.
"I can only see the Catholic Church as truly expansive, truly universal in its outlook, and "there" at all the important moments of history, taking to herself all that is good from every age; the truly humanistic institution."
Has that always been the case though ? Hasn't it essentially backfired in many cases, at the expense of the Faithful ? Whether it be the Church of the West, or the dealings of the Church with the Faithful of the East.
This essentially posits that Catholicism (Western)is the author of Western civilization, which seems rather odd on your part given that your earlier posts speak against such.
"I take issue with the latter sentiment because Rome is one of the most ancient centers of Christianity and there has been quite a bit of liturgical and theological development in the East."
Well exactly. I think a lot of it is fetishizing the exotic in Westerners. There's a reason the phenomenon in the 19th century was called "orientalism"...
"That being said, I don't know that I would criticize the East as being unable to adapt or not having a sweeping vision. Until fairly recently in history, much of it was overrun by governments that varied between hostile and tolerant of Christianity (Islam and Communism)."
Perhaps, but contingent history cannot be excluded from the plan of Providence.
My point was just that the Catholic Church is the only institution I can look upon as truly a global religion with a universal vision.
The Roman Empire (whose "ghost" it is) and the British Empire are the only similar institutions I can think of with such an all-encompassing scope or vision. But, of course, they aren't churches.
Perhaps Golden Age Islam was similar in its breadth? But then, the institutional aspect there was much looser, even when there was a caliphate.
Try as I might, I just can't think of Orthodoxy as anything more than an ethnic phenomenon (broadly speaking), anymore than I can imagine Hinduism or Judaism as universal.
I don't mean "Eastern Christianity" in general, though. Eastern Catholic Christianity would be included in my notion of the broad or sweeping or universalizing exactly BECAUSE they are part of and expressions of the Catholic Church.
But only parts or expressions (as is the West). I guess I feel like Orthodoxy is a particular historically contingent instantiation of a much broader (catholic) essence that, cut off, the one form becomes "locked" as just that essence, when really the particular historically contingent forms are not ends in themselves, but merely expressions of something more transcendent.
"The entry itself does a disservice to Church ecclesiology, in that it equates Catholicism with the Latin Church"
I'm not sure where it ever does that. Catholicism includes Eastern Catholic Churches, of course.
"By merely stating that they're quaint oddities, or rather 'exotic' exceptions to the rule, it ignores the very real differences between the Churches, and their respective histories, Traditions, and developments."
I'm not sure where I ever said that about Eastern Churches, generally. Eastern Catholic Churches are an expression of Catholicity, as is the West.
I was talking about the schismatics.
"then for all intents, and purposes it won't look anything like the Church in the West. Why the incessant call for that to be so ?"
I'm not sure who is making that call.
"So while my argument concerns Eastern Catholics, realize that the very same arguments raised therein in relation to the Orthodox, would just as much apply to them."
No, because the Orthodox think of themselves as "THE Church," self contained. Sure there is "Western Rite Orthodoxy" but it isn't comparable to Eastern Catholicism. Eastern Catholics see themselves (like Latin Catholics should) as part of a broader whole, whereas Orthodoxy is a part (and a detached part at that) conceiving of itself AS the whole.
This is a warning that can be given to Latin Catholicism too, of course (and especially, say, a confusion of the Pope's role AS Pope vs. his role AS Western Patriarch). But ultimately I think Catholicism has or is overcoming this confusion in a way Orthodoxy has not. Catholicism also never gave itself over to this confusion as entirely.
"This essentially posits that Catholicism (Western)is the author of Western civilization, which seems rather odd on your part given that your earlier posts speak against such."
Well, it essentially posits that only Catholicism (not western or eastern, just Catholicism) IS Civilization, in some sense.
If Western Catholicism has been a major (even essential) player in Western Civilization, I presume that when Global Civilization truly is achieved, when THAT universalizing humanistic narrative finally is forged (and it is being forged, though the Far East still is hard to integrate)...Global Catholicism will remain a major player.
Now, it is debatable whether the Global Historical Narrative will involve Western Civilization's "story" forming the "core" narrative onto which others get finally grafted in the manner of the Gentiles being grafted onto the Jewish story in Christianity, or of the Germanic Northern Europeans getting grafted onto the "Mediterranean" Greco-Roman narrative in the Medieval world, or whether it will involve more a sort of combining of two "equal" narratives of East and West in the manner that Greco-Roman Civilization is welded (in the story of "history") to the more ancient history of Egypt and the Middle East (including through Christianity's Jewish roots) even though there wasn't necessarily the same sort of direct continuity (ala the translatio imperii et studii) but rather more a parallelism and interactionism.
Right now it's hard for me to say.
Most informed Orthodox consider the "Eastern Catholic" churches a historical, political and theological aberration -- not because they are "sell-outs" to the Latin West, though some do argue that way -- but because the true ideal of reunion would be for East and West to be united but still remain separate and distinct, such that both can run themselves independently as organs of one body and not one as the polyp of the other. Not all Orthodox consider themselves "THE CHURCH," although many are biased towards seeing themselves as more historical.
The Orthodox would recognize the Pope as the head, but only in his function to resolve disputes and organize councils, and whatever else he did as a general overseer before the schism. They would still respect him and include him in liturgical prayers, since that is what they did before the official disagreement, ugh, I mean “split” -- but many are still sore over the Popes’ political policies towards them in the past.
Taken as a whole, the Orthodox are more liturgically and theologically “pure”, but they are ossified in a way in the world of the first 8 councils and are structurally and prudentially unstable. For example, who determines when a church becomes autonomous or autocephalous, and what happens when one or two ‘historical’ patriarchs disagree? Also, what happens when they encounter a more complex modern problem like gluten-intolerance or medical procedures that they have never-before considered?
Having taken a class taught by an Orthodox scholar and professor about Orthodoxy and been immersed in the cultural world of Orthodoxy for a semester, I can say that Orthodoxy is NOT any "purer" than Latin-rite Catholicism. Rather, you will find a spectrum of ‘purity’ in both. Liturgically-speaking, in Chicago at least, Orthodox priests cut corners, parishioners don't participate, and the art used in churches (while usually traditional), also has a lot of Western cross-pollination and modern "corruptions." Orthodoxy in Chicago is also very culturally-centered and often not open to the American culture at all. Where it is open, it leads to the same if not worse problems than culturally-identifying Catholics run into, such as parishes become divided among the Americanized, the un-Americanized, the foreigners and the "over-zealous" or imbalanced converts. The Russian church also holds a monopoly over the experience of Orthodoxy in America. Should other groups just “jump” right in to the self-proclaimed autocephalous “OCA”?
Furthermore, the desire to be "pastoral" (the preferred word is “oikonomia”) in the Orthodox church also leads to a way of thinking exemplified by statements like "contraceptives are okay so long as they are not abortifacient and a couple seeks it in spiritual direction." This is taught in Orthodox American seminaries and only "monks" and those of the "old order" hold to the more traditional teaching on contraception. Most priests and laity subscribe to the former way of thinking and acting and do not even fiddle with the Catholic Church’s position. I’ve also learned by visiting the OCA’s “cathedral” church in Chicago that a well-advertised ministry and website does equal a “pure” or vibrant community, nor does a married priest equal an more effective or engaging priest.
I would also safely venture to predict that any Westerner who seriously considers Orthodoxy would quickly become disillusioned and disappointed with the same institutional “barriers” that they saw in Catholicism. Differences in leadership-styles exist everywhere and any experience of religion that is purely self-seeking will always be disappointing. While Catholicism may not be the most “liturgically-pure” (although I would seriously contest that claim, especially with many new rural and urban parishes) parishioners are generally happy with the little they do have, because God still acts on their behalf in spite of their own and others’ deficiencies. The real problem, in East or West is simply a lack of honest faith or the commitment to the virtue of religion among the people, both lay and ‘clerical.’ (Btw, that whole heritage of anticlericalism in its classical sense simply does not exist in the East, because there never really was any official clerical structure in Eastern Christianity. Eastern Christianity developed in the materially and intellectually-prosperous Byzantine Empire, where both lay-people and clergy were highly-educated and learned theology, whereas poverty and social disorder in the West meant that only priests ended up educated and hence also had to take on special social and political leadership roles in their communities, in addition to their religious ones).
"I'm not sure where it ever does that. Catholicism includes Eastern Catholic Churches, of course."
Our respective ecclesiologies are world's apart though. Allatae sunt breaks down a Latin proposal towards the Pope's relationship to the East, that doesn't account for the Eastern schema of things.
www.papalencyclicals.net/Ben14/b14allat.htm
"I'm not sure where I ever said that about Eastern Churches, generally. Eastern Catholic Churches are an expression of Catholicity, as is the West.
I was talking about the schismatics."
You didn't, I know. I however clarified that later in my response. The question however remains, what constitutes Catholicity that isn't an exercise in occidental ecclesiological phyletism ? That is the point I sought to articulate.
"No, because the Orthodox think of themselves as "THE Church," self contained. Sure there is "Western Rite Orthodoxy" but it isn't comparable to Eastern Catholicism. Eastern Catholics see themselves (like Latin Catholics should) as part of a broader whole, whereas Orthodoxy is a part (and a detached part at that) conceiving of itself AS the whole."
See 'Allatae sunt'. There is world of difference between being a Rite, and being a Church. Vatican II,for all it's implications, and problems as far as application in the West are concerned, IS the sole council post Schism (Which wasn't as cut, and dry as 1054 (That only speaks to the rift between Rome, and Byzantium (Which actually began earlier, with the Pope's name having been removed in Byzantium.), the schism between Rome, and the other Churches of the East (Antioch etc.) comes about much later.).), following the Unia that engages with their legitimate place within the CATHOLIC Church, as bound by the Petrine See. Not mere Rites, but Churches proper (Whether that will lead to autocephaly in the future I don't know...).
"This is a warning that can be given to Latin Catholicism too, of course (and especially, say, a confusion of the Pope's role AS Pope vs. his role AS Western Patriarch). But ultimately I think Catholicism has or is overcoming this confusion in a way Orthodoxy has not. Catholicism also never gave itself over to this confusion as entirely."
It's only been so in the past 40 or so years. So you're right in that regard, but given that as Allatae sunt cites, there is a lot in the way of acknowledging their respective ecclesiology, praxis etc., that well won't exactly jive to well with the developments in the West. It is my understanding (at least if I read that properly), that Trent didn't per se condemn the practice of ecclesiastical divorce of the East, given their application of oikonomia etc. I'm not sure how well that reconciles with the view in the West. Namely in that Western Catholicism only grants annulments, whereas the East grants both. What then ? When I find the link, I'll share it here. I still have a hard time working through that. Namely in that there would appear to be a dose of nuance between them, but even then, they're worlds apart.
"Well, it essentially posits that only Catholicism (not western or eastern, just Catholicism) IS Civilization, in some sense.If Western Catholicism has been a major (even essential) player in Western Civilization, I presume that when Global Civilization truly is achieved, when THAT universalizing humanistic narrative finally is forged (and it is being forged, though the Far East still is hard to integrate)...Global Catholicism will remain a major player."
That it provides for a neutral (Not that historically that has been the case...) base from whence a culture (Culture = Catholicism : culture = local expression) may develop. However, what happens as it has in the past, when lines are blurred ? Phyletism, which is a condemned heresy (At least it is in the East).
The Far East, Africa, Latin America etc. are all difficult to put into the "tidy" categories of East, and West we have, because they participate from within a distinct Cultural (Civilization wise in this case) continuity. Imperialism/colonialism in the case of Latin America, and pockets of Africa (Save Ethiopia (Which now puts into context that particular prayer. Especially since Italy would have granted that Ethiopia come under Rome. I'm only speculating here, but it seems plausible to some degree.).) "attempted" to graft them into the West, that however didn't work out so well. A parallel development can be seen as regards to Churches that developed outside of the confines of the Roman Empire (The Oriental Churches, especially in Persia, Ethiopia etc.). This is probably why I'm a bit more empathetic to their evangelatory efforts, because they don't have all the associated baggage. Namely, there was no desire to drastically change a people, whilst still making them participants within the Church (Trinitarian ek-stasis is something the Church as a WHOLE is called to. We are meant to experience such at a local level in our respective parishes, but given that we haven't exactly ironed that out on a local level, how do we hope to participate in such on a more universal level ?).
"Now, it is debatable whether the Global Historical Narrative will involve Western Civilization's "story" forming the "core" narrative onto which others get finally grafted in the manner of the Gentiles being grafted onto the Jewish story in Christianity, or of the Germanic Northern Europeans getting grafted onto the "Mediterranean" Greco-Roman narrative in the Medieval world, or whether it will involve more a sort of combining of two "equal" narratives of East and West in the manner that Greco-Roman Civilization is welded (in the story of "history") to the more ancient history of Egypt and the Middle East (including through Christianity's Jewish roots) even though there wasn't necessarily the same sort of direct continuity (ala the translatio imperii et studii) but rather more a parallelism and interactionism.
Right now it's hard for me to say."
You're right, it is difficult, but essentially that is the task of the Church to direct the World (But for now, the Faithful) towards such. Most would cite that it's the role proper of the Holy Roman Emperor, but I wonder, is that even possible, or prudent for our age ? I don't necessarily have a say in the manner, and thus offer no opinion towards such. I respect self identified monarchists, but in so far as a cultural memory is concerned, monarchy wasn't exactly so kind on the receiving end. At least through the various intermediaries installed to run matters in the colonies. Still, I wonder how that would even function within our world in this day, and age, where we seem to be more, and more isolated from one another, as opposed to acknowledging our shared, and common humanity (THAT is what is SO difficult about the Incarnation. Not that GOD would take upon flesh (Well such is difficult for Jews, and Muslims.), but that GOD called to Himself ALL mortal flesh in taking upon Adam, and in doing so elevated the dignity of ALL mankind regardless of state, ethnicity, sex etc.). But what can we do ?
Here is the promised link:
http://www.pathsoflove.com/texts/ratzinger-indissolubility-marriage/
Post a Comment