Eastern Orthodox Church - Opus Publicum

December 8, 2015 Eastern Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox Church

Was Vatican II All Bad? An Eastern Comment

Today marks the 50th anniversary of the close of the Second Vatican Council. To “commemorate” this event, Professor Peter Kwasniewski posted two closing addresses from the Council, the first by Pope Paul VI and the second by Archbishop Pericle Felici. The naïve optimism expressed in both should give any soberminded Catholic reason to pause. Still, at the risk of sounding like a heretic to many traditional Catholics, can it really be said that all of Vatican II was a wash? And here I am not just referring to passages in Lumen Gentium or Sacrosantum Concillium which merely reaffirm longstanding Catholic doctrine and praxis. What I mean to precisely ask is did Vatican II not give something positive to the Church which, over the last half-century, has borne good fruit? Without claiming to cover the Council’s whole terrain, let me suggest that there is at least one document from Vatican II which deserves honest appreciation (if not praise) even if falls a bit short in certain areas: Orientalium Ecclesiarum (OE).

Prior to OE (and in some instances for decades after), most of the sui iuris Eastern Catholic churches had undergone various processes of Latinization regarding their liturgy, theology, and governance structure. One of the principal effects of Latinization was to reduce Eastern Catholicism to a ritual form, thus obscuring the reality that the Eastern churches are true particular churches in full communion with Rome. OE, in continuity with calls from popes such as Leo XIII and St. Pius X, pushes back against Latinizations in the Eastern churches, particularly in the area of liturgy and the sacraments. Unlike the Roman Church, Eastern Christians have long administered all of the sacraments of initiation (Baptism, Chrismation/Confirmation, and the Eucharist) at the same time and to infants. Moreover, Eastern disciplinary practices regarding fasting, holy days, and liturgical norms have their own logic and history to them which were not always respected by neighboring Latin Catholic bishops and priests. OE helps remind the universal Church of the full integrity of Eastern Christianity and helps stem the tide of Latin chauvinism which has washed over the Eastern Catholic churches for centuries.

Another important feature of OE is its openness to reconciliation with the separated Eastern churches (Oriental and Eastern Orthodox). While some traditional Catholics have expressed dissatisfaction with the document’s positive (but tempered) tone toward communicatio in sacris, it’s important to note that OE is only restating and affirming the centuries-old reality of Catholics and Orthodox ministering to each other’s flocks, particularly in areas such as the Middle East where all Christians were and remain subject to Muslim persecution. Contrary to the claims of some hysterical traditionalists, nowhere does OE claim that the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox should stay separated from the Catholic Church. What OE does state, however, is that the Eastern churches should remain true to themselves. The goal of Catholic unity is not to impose a monolithic rite upon all of Christendom or discard practices which do not align perfectly with Latin disciplines, but to dwell together as one flock under one shepherd who is Jesus Christ, the Lord and Savior of the world.

Now, none of this is to say that OE is a perfect document. From the Orthodox perspective delivered by Fr. Alexander Schmemann, OE is still subject to an overly Latinized ecclesiological and theological framework—an observation shared by a number of Eastern Catholics as well. Further, it is arguable that OE did not go far enough in granting to the Eastern Catholic patriarchs and metropolitans the autonomy they and their respective churches deserve by right. A simple, but telling, example is the ongoing “need” for the Pope to officially canonize Eastern saints—a process that flies in the face of ancient Eastern (or, for that matter, Western) praxis. Additionally, the continuing existence of the Congregation for Oriental Churches coupled with Rome’s all-too-frequent interventions into Eastern Christian affairs highlights the fact that there is still a long way to go before the Catholic Church will truly breathe with both lungs.

December 7, 2015 Eastern Orthodox Church, Roman Catholic Church

Hart, American Catholicism, and Francis

Who knows? America is such an odd combination of Christian pieties and post-Christian habits of thought. What other country could produce persons, for instance, who believe it possible to be both Christian and libertarian (which makes me think of Enoch Soames, the “Catholic diabolist”)? With our occult belief in the possibility of limitless “wealth creation,” how do we dare acknowledge the limits of nature, human or cosmic? But Francis cannot really concern himself with our peculiarities and perversities. For all its economic power, American Catholicism is only one minor and rather aberrant party within the worldwide communion; and Francis is writing for his Church, not for America. Of course, it is possible that one day a Christian view of reality will take root even here, in this the first constitutionally and culturally post-Christian land in Western history. But—and, again, not being a Roman Catholic, I may have no right to say this—I do not think it is incumbent on the pope to hold his tongue until it does.

– David Bentley Hart, “Habetis Papam,” First Things

I confess that I am still in shock that David Bentley Hart’s simultaneous critique of American Catholicism and praise of Pope Francis wasn’t met with more commentary (just lots of Facebook shares). Hart, undoubtedly the finest Christian blowhard pontificating today, has a funny way of irritating Catholics almost as much as he vexes his Eastern Orthodox coreligionists. Whether he is flubbing the basics of natural-law teaching or childishly mocking natura pura, Hart just can’t seem to help himself, though in this instance at least he is right on the money when it comes to Americanist Catholic ideology. What he doesn’t seem to understand is why so many Catholics are truly frustrated with Francis. Yes, the peculiarities of American movement conservatism have something to do with it; but the core problem is that so many of Francis’s words and actions appear to be out-of-sync with the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Some like to hold to the childish belief that Orthodox should not “meddle with” the affairs of the Catholic Church and instead tend to their own disheveled ecclesiastical nest. I disagree. While Hart perplexes me at times with the clumsy way he handles Catholic teaching, there can be little doubt that he is far more sympathetic toward Western Christianity than most Orthodox writers. More importantly, however, Hart (and other Orthodox observers of “things Catholic”) brings an outsider’s perspective to the table which — in a perfect world — could help temper Catholic chauvinism. The problem with Hart in particular is that his track record up to this time hasn’t been particularly good since he successfully needled a certain brand of American Catholics for their puerile dismissals of Terrence Malick’s film, The Tree of Life.

As for Francis, it might behoove Hart to reflect on what his fellow Orthodox think of the man as well and what, if any, positive ecumenical fruits can come from his papacy. As I have written elsewhere, while I do believe that Papa Frank sincerely desires East/West reunion, he fails to understand how his rhetoric, liturgical style, and seeming blindness to the problem of “papalotry” militate against positive relations with the Orthodox East. It will take a far more broad-minded and circumspect pope (or series of popes) to make the possibility of reunion even remotely plausible. As it stands, world Orthodoxy is a mess, with patriarchates and autocephalous churches remaining at each other’s throats. It also doesn’t help that there is a contingent of neo-Orthodox out there who have basically adopted a Jansenist position with regards to grace outside of their narrow, heavily policed, borders. Francis cannot transcend those difficulties, and I have my doubts that he is even fully aware of them.

November 30, 2015 Eastern Orthodox Church, Roman Catholic Church

A Followup Comment on the Neo-Orthodox

Is it possible that the American neo-Orthodox attack on Catholic sacraments is simply a manifestation of the same inferiority complex which has haunted other parts of world Orthodoxy for centuries? That question was proposed to me in a recent chat and I was simply unsure how to answer. It is important always to bear in mind how many Anglophone neo-Orthodox polemicists are either converts or, now, the children of converts. Having drunk the dregs of Protestantism for many years, many of these folks still can’t shake the idea that Rome is the “Great Satan” which has arbitrarily imposed its will on Western Christendom for a millennium, distorting doctrine and obscuring truth all along the way. Of course, these are the same folk who believe that the “Uniates” represent a class of duped-and-deluded wannabes who kneel before their king on the Tiber while liturgically play-acting with stolen rites. Far be it for the neo-Orthodox to take a frank look at history—including their own tumultuous history—before drawing radical conclusions about the spiritual state of millions of fellow Christians.

Catholics should keep in mind that the neo-Orthodox do not represent world Orthodoxy. In fact, they do not even represent American Orthodoxy despite the latter’s annoying penchant for repacking shopworn Protestant polemics and calling them “apologias” for the East. Some of the neo-Orthodox will parade about claiming that their “theological critiques” of, say, Roman ecclesiology or Latin sacramental theology have “never been answered.” The truth is that they are largely ignored. Why? Because all of this “stuff” has already been hashed out in respectable theological circles. Moreover, neo-Orthodox ignorance of what the Catholic Church actually believes and professes can be downright painful. As Fr. Robert Taft has stated numerous times, if you want to know what the Catholic Church actually holds to, Google it. The Catholic Church does not hide its doctrines or praxis; they are contained in numerous documentary sources for all to read. I know some Orthodox have an exaggerated interest in “mystery.” Well, I hate to break it to them, but Catholic teaching is not mysterious; it is right there, out there, and in the open for all to see, if they are so inclined.

This doesn’t mean that Catholicism is not riddled with its fair amount of theological disputes and hermeneutical quarrels. Drop by Google Scholar sometime and type in “Second Vatican Council” or, heck, “Dignitatis humanae” and you will quickly find yourself drowning in a sea of scholarship. What is wonderful today is how many of these disputes are carried out with an “Eastern perspective” as well. It is simply not possible to make absolute statements on what the Church has “always believed” without incorporating what the Eastern churches have also “always believed.” Is it neat and clean? No. Is it messy and divisive? Sometimes. But is it necessary? Absolutely. If the neo-Orthodox think for one second that the Catholic Church and her theologians have not seriously considered the Eastern perspective on sacraments, ecclesiology, liturgy, and spirituality, they are simply kidding themselves (or are woefully ignorant). Maybe the neo-Orthodox won’t always be pleased with the conclusions Catholic theologians draw, but those conclusions are not produced in ignorance of the Church’s universal intellectual patrimony. In other words, the neo-Orthodox are not sitting on a legitimate treasure chest of “secret knowledge” (Patristic consensus!) into which they can freely dip to trump Catholic doctrinal claims.

There’s always room for improvement, of course. Although the last half-century of Catholic thought has been something of a mixed bag, the introduction of Eastern sources, including contemporary Eastern theologians, into Catholicism’s theological discussion has been a great boon for the Church. I see no reason why Catholics should not take Orthodox claims seriously, at least so long as those claims are coming from individuals who are interested in doing more than grinding axes and spouting triumphalist rhetoric. As I have stated many times before, the Orthodox Church does not possess a greener pasture for any Christian to run to. Orthodoxy does have certain comparative advantages over present-day Catholicism, but it is also riddled with internal problems (not to mention doctrinal confusion) that no Catholic should envy (or mock for that matter). Most are well aware of Catholicism’s problems. They are advertised daily. Orthodoxy, for better or worse, skates by criticism in the West because it is largely an unknown quantity. That is its triumph and its tragedy.

November 28, 2015 Eastern Orthodox Church, Theology

A Note on the Neo-Orthodox Attack on Catholic Sacraments

Since the book is getting a lot of attention in Eastern circles, I thought I would make mention of the recently translated neo-Orthodox polemic against the Second Vatican Council, Fr. John Heers’s newly translated The Ecclesiological Renovation of Vatican II: An Orthodox Examination of Rome’s Ecumenical Theology Regarding Baptism and the Church from Uncut Mountain Press. Heers, for those who are unaware, is a vocal opponent of Catholic/Orthodox ecumenism and the intellectual heir of Greek-nationalist theologians such as Fr. John Romanides. To be clear: I have not read the book, though I am not against doing so at some point down the line. In the meantime I decided to check out an earlier paper by Heers, one which appears to summarize the “findings” contained in his book: “The Mystery of Baptism and the Unity of the Church: The Idea of ‘Baptismal Unity’ and its Acceptance by Orthodox Ecumenists.” The title effectively gives away the author’s conclusions. Heers wants the Orthodox Church to “return to strictness” when it comes to “heretical baptisms.” In other words, he wants all converts to be re-baptized and for Orthodoxy to go full Jansenist in declaring there is no grace to be found in non-Orthodox sacraments. Wonderful.

As most know, the push for re-baptism and grace-denial is of relatively recent vintage. In the centuries prior to the rise of Greek nationalism, the Greek Orthodox Church—like its Russian counterpart—accepted non-Orthodox (Catholic and Oriental) baptisms, and if chrismation or confirmation had already been administered, they were sometimes accepted as well. (I will leave to the side the various debates about this.) Further, Catholic priests who converted to Orthodoxy, whether from the Latin or one of the Eastern churches, were traditionally received through vesting, not re-ordination. Once the modern “Greek view” started to become normative, theories were developed about previous practice, with oikonomia being proposed as the “magic answer.” According to this line of thinking, it wasn’t that Orthodoxy accepted the validity of non-Orthodox baptisms; reception into the Orthodox Church retroactively filled the otherwise empty sacraments with grace.

It is ironic that Heers and his fellow travelers are so rabidly against the possibility that Orthodoxy could develop a broader and deeper sacramental theology which contemplates the validity of sacraments conferred by non-Orthodox ministers. None of them seem to have any problem with the development (some might argue degeneration) of Orthodox sacramental theology with respect to marriage, one which now allows for the dissolution of valid marriages and the possibility for an Orthodox layman to marry two additional times. When, I wonder, will the neo-Orthodox now calling for a “return to strictness” regarding baptism do the same regarding marriage? That’ll be the day.

November 11, 2015 Eastern Orthodox Church, Roman Catholic Church, Theology

A Closing Comment on the Meyendorff Posts

Contrary to what some have murmured about in other forums, the previous two posts on Fr. John Meyendorff’s views concerning Catholic marriage and contraception were not intended as cheap shots against the Eastern Orthodox, nor were they meant to be read as easygoing vindications of contemporary Catholic praxis. As I have stated before, the Catholic Church has little-to-no “moral high ground” on the Orthodox with respect to marriage, divorce, contraception, abortion, and sexual ethics as a whole. No one should triumphalistically wave the text of Humane Vitae in the air without first acknowledging that most Catholics ignore it. Similarly, the days of condescending digs at the Orthodox over marriage dissolutions should be over, particularly in light of the fact that Pope Francis has cleared a pathway for “Catholic divorce.” Although I believe that Fr. Meyendorff was mistaken on certain points of Catholic doctrine, and exhibited a strange lack of knowledge concerning the natural-law tradition, that hardly means I think less of him as a serious scholar. His works on classical Byzantine theology, St. Gregory Palamas, and East/West relations should be required reading for any serious student of Eastern Christianity.

All thinkers have faults of course, and Meyendroff was no exception. Fr. Peter Totleben, whose contributions to this blog are always welcome, had this to say in the combox to “Meyendorff on Roman Catholic Marriage“:

A typical pattern that you see in the works of Meyendorff (especially when he is critical of Western practices) is that he takes a term, a tag, or a catch-phrase that strikes him as odd, gives it his own meaning, and then criticizes it in terms of the meaning he has given it. So he can be a bit hard to engage.

There are also some problems with Meyendorff’s historical work. He’s usually invested in a particular “side” in the historical events that he investigates. And he doesn’t really take the positions of other sides seriously. He usually is too trusting of his own party’s evaluations of its opponents, and he uncritically repeats them as if they were objective summaries of the state of affairs. And he never really consults what the opponents of his side have to say.

So, reading Meyendorff can sometimes be like letting Rush Limbaugh explain democrats to you . . .

November 10, 2015 Eastern Orthodox Church, Roman Catholic Church, Theology

Meyendorff (and Orthodoxy) on Contraception

Yesterday’s brief post on Fr. John Meyendorff’s controversial remarks on Roman Catholic marriage prompted me to poke around a bit more in Marriage: An Orthodox Perspective. Here is what Meyendorff has to say on the contraception question.

Recent Roman Catholic teaching also recommends periodic continence, but forbids the “artificial” means, such as the “pill.” But is there a real difference between the means called “artificial” and those considered “natural”? Is continence really “natural”? Is not any medical control of human functions “artificial”? Should it therefore be condemned as sinful? And finally, a serious theological question: is anything “natural” necessarily “good”? For even St. Paul saw that continence can lead to “burning.” Is not science able to render childbirth more humane, by controlling it, just as it controls food, habitat and health?

Straight condemnation of birth-control fails to give satisfactory answers to all these questions. It has never been endorsed by the Orthodox Church as a whole, even if, at times, local Church authorities may have issued statements on the matter identical to that of the Pope. In any case, it has never been the Church’s practice to give moral guidance by issuing standard formulas claiming universal validity on questions which actually require a personal act of conscience. There are forms of birth control which will be acceptable, and even unavoidable, for certain couples, while others will prefer avoiding them. This is particularly true of the “pill.”

November 9, 2015 Eastern Orthodox Church, Roman Catholic Church, Theology

Meyendorff on Roman Catholic Marriage

A Facebook friend of mine posted a controversial passage from Fr. John Meyendorff’s Marriage: An Orthodox Perspective. Here is the quote, along with some prefatory sentences he omitted.

Many confusions and misunderstandings concerning marriage in our contemporary Orthodox practice would be easily eliminated if the original connection between marriage and the Eucharist were restored. Theoretically, Orthodox sacramental theology, even in its scholastic, textbook form, has preserved this connection in affirming, in opposition to Roman Catholicism, that the priest is the ‘minister’ of marriage. Western medieval theology, on the contrary, has created a series of confusions by adopting, as in so many other points Roman legalism as the basis of sacramental theology: marriage, being a ‘contract’, is concluded by the husband and wife themselves, who are therefore the ‘ministers’ of the sacrament, the priest being only a witness. As a legal contract, marriage is dissolved by the death of one of the partners, but it is indissoluble as long as both are alive. Actually, indissolubility i.e., a legal concept taken as an absolute is the main, if not the only, contribution of Christianity to the Roman Catholic concept of marriage. Broken by death, assimilated with a human agreement, marriage, in the prevailing Western view, is only an earthly affair, concerned with the body, unworthy of entering the Kingdom of God. One can even wonder whether marriage, so understood, can still be called a sacrament. But, by affirming that the priest is the minister of the marriage, as he is also the minister of the Eucharist, the Orthodox Church implicitly integrates marriage in the eternal Mystery, where the boundaries between heaven and earth are broken and where human decision and action acquire an eternal dimension.

In the 40 years since Meyendorff penned those lines there have been various attempts within Catholicism to “correct” the idea of marriage-as-contract and adopt an ostensibly more Eastern take on the supernatural end of marriage rather than droning-on exclusively about the begetting and rearing of children. Even so, Latin “contractual theology” regarding marriage remains the prevailing view. It is so prevalent in fact that we have reached a point where a pope can (allegedly) say that more than half of Catholic marriages are invalid on the basis of the partners’ inability to form the proper intention to make a sacramental pact. Had Latin Catholicism adopted the Eastern view, whereby the priest is the minister of the sacrament, it would be far more difficult — if not impossible — to claim that any more than a relative handful of Catholic marriages are in fact invalid. Although Roman Catholics still enjoy lobbing stones at the Orthodox for allowing marriages to be dissolved, arguably the Eastern view of the sacrament better protects its integrity than the dominant Latin one. (And before anyone flies into a huff, I in no way, shape, or form reject fixed Catholic doctrine on marriage.)

Of course, one ought to take some of Meyendorff’s remarks with a grain of salt. As my aforementioned Facebook friend observed — and any Orthodox Christian can confirm — , Orthodox marriage ceremonies take place outside of the context of the Divine Liturgy all of the time. Reception of the Eucharist is not an “essential element” of the rite. Moreover, mixed marriages never include the non-Orthodox spouse receiving Communion. And as Meyendorff himself states elsewhere in the book, Roman Catholic marriages are typically celebrated with the Mass, which seems to splash at least a bit of cold water on Meyendorff’s hyper-contractualist retelling of Latin sacramental theology regarding marriage. Still, one can rightly speculate about the general effect the Latin view has had on the popular Catholic understanding of marriage and whether or not it may have something to do with the anthropocentric — rather than Christocentric — approach many couples take to the wedding ceremony itself. Contemporary Catholic weddings, by and large, have a great deal to do with the couple and very little to do with God.

November 4, 2015 Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, Roman Catholic Church, Spirituality

Comparison: Russian Orthodox Eucharistic Discipline

With Eucharistic discipline being on the forefront of many Catholics’ minds these days, I thought it might be helpful—for the sake of some perspective—to take a brief look at the normative prescribed practice of the Russian Orthodox Church and her heirs. Although the Orthodox do not embrace a “clean distinction” between mortal and venial sin, serious sin has always been an impediment to receiving Holy Communion in the East. This is why those who regularly receive the Eucharist are encouraged, if not directed, to make frequent use of the sacrament of Confession and to spiritually prepare themselves in advance (more on this in a moment). In previous centuries, the demands of preparation, coupled with popular Eucharistic piety, meant that few people, other than monastics and clergy, took Communion more than a couple of times a year. During the course of the 20th Century, this situation began to change as (primarily Russian émigré) theologians like Fr. Alexander Schmemann began promoting the centrality of the Eucharist in the life and mission of the Church. Even before Schmemann’s time, however, St. John of Kronstadt—perhaps Russia’s first religious celebrity to gain worldwide notice—had begun encouraging the faithful to attend the sacraments more frequently in order to nourish themselves on the long journey to Heaven. While conservative Orthodox critics bemoaned what they saw as an erosion of discipline in the Church, today regular (though not necessarily weekly) Communion is commonplace.

November 3, 2015 Eastern Orthodox Church, Roman Catholic Church

A Brief Remark on Political Affiliation, East and West

The Pew Research Center has issued a new report, U.S. Becoming Less Religious. Go figure. Chapter 4 of the report, “Social and Political Attitudes,” contains some interesting numbers on shifts in Catholic and Orthodox political-party affiliation since 2007. The short and the long of it is that Catholics have begun stepping away from the Democratic Party to align with Republicans while the Orthodox have defected from both parties (albeit mostly from the Democrats) to become more independent or have no affiliation. Both Catholics and Orthodox have increased their support for smaller government . . . and same-sex marriage. There are other interesting factoids to glean from the report; those are the ones that jumped out to me.

Broadly speaking, Catholics and Orthodox match-up fairly well when it comes to contemporary American liberal values. In other words, both confessions are packed full of dissenters from fundamental Christian morality. Although I have repeatedly stated that, on average, American Orthodox bishops and priests are less heterodox than their Catholic counterparts, it doesn’t appear to have significantly influenced their faithful. Why that is the case is difficult to say, but a fascinating question nonetheless.

November 3, 2015 Eastern Orthodox Church, Roman Catholic Church

Speak of the Pope

Ethika Politika (EP) has undertaken a full-court press on behalf of Pope Francis. Yesterday, Andrew Haines, EP’s lead editor, laid into Catholics who are less-than-impressed with the recently concluded Extraordinary Synod on the Family and the direction in which Francis is taking the Church. Today, another EP editor, David Mills, chastises his coreligionists about their public (or even private) attitude toward the Pope. While Mills is right to observe that some of the negative rhetoric concerning Francis’s pontificate is extreme, he may be going too far in assuming that those who criticize the Pope strongly are only doing so in order to score sanctimony points. Many faithful Catholics are genuinely worried, if not panicked, about what Francis has allowed to transpire over the past two years because it is hindering the Church’s divine mission. Mills expresses worry about what non-Catholics might think when they hear sons and daughters of the Church speaking ill of Francis, but does he worry about what those same non-Catholics think when the Pope appears to undermine Catholic doctrine while failing to discharge his duties seriously?

Very few, if any, of my Eastern Orthodox friends and acquaintances are impressed with this Pope. Instead of seeing a man who is supposed to seriously lead 1.2 billion Christians to the Kingdom of Heaven, they find an inept chairman of the world’s largest and most dysfunctional NGO. His off-the-cuff remarks to pressmen and individual Catholics are oftentimes confusing, if not scandalous. His liturgical style is grotesque, not to mention anti-traditional, and his priorities seem to be directed at accommodating the Church to the ways of the world rather than saving souls. Although the Orthodox are not without their own faults, can anyone imagine Patriarch Kirill of Moscow—head of the world’s largest Orthodox jurisdiction—wagging his finger at those in his flock attached to traditional doctrine, liturgy, and piety? Is there a single Orthodox patriarch in the world—save Bartholomew of Constantinople—who behaves like Francis? Heaven forbid.

Mills wants Catholics to love the Pope as “their father.” The hard truth is that Francis does not project the authority, leadership, and love of a true father. He is the embarrassing loudmouthed uncle who is begrudgingly invited over on Thanksgiving. He’s family, so you love him; but you still hope your friends never see him.