Dr Liccione,
First of all, I am honoured to find my comments on your weblog. I take it that you find them a clear expression of a position that is worth debating.
Now, to engage your response (I'll need to post it as several comments, due to Haloscan's size limit):
You make two charges against my argument: first, that I have implicity accused the Pope, Abp Levada, and whoever else is involved in the production of this document of "contradicting themselves"; and second, that I have not construed the ecclesiology of St Ignatius correctly.
To the first charge I reply that I do not think that the Pope is stupid, nor that the theologians in the CDF are stupid either; and nothing that I wrote implies that. I don't find the Responses document to be self-contradictory, and I presume that it summarizes the teaching of Lumen Gentium correctly (I've read Lumen Gentium thoroughly, but not lately).
I do find that both Lumen Gentium and the Responses document contradict earlier Catholic teachings. I know that the Catholic position is that Lumen Gentium is a development, rather than a contradiction, of earlier teachings. But the arguments in favour of that position are simply not persuasive to me. The Responses document, in any case, does not argue for, or demonstrate, that "development" position; it simply asserts it. For those who accept the absolute authority of the Pope, such an assertion, by itself, is sufficient and authoritative; for the rest of us, some sort of supporting argument is required. As our mutual friend Dr Tighe has taught me, what is asserted without argument may be dismissed without giving a reason.
Continuing my response:
As to the second charge, another person to whom my e-mail was sent responded to me in similar terms, saying that I was mistaken to suppose that the term "true particular Church" implies the possession of Catholic fulness. I think my reply to him will serve as my reply to you on this point as well (I will not quote or identify him, since his reply to me was private, not sent to a wide group. But I think it safe to say that he regards himself as an orthodox Roman catholic.).
I wrote:
If the term "true particular Church" does not imply Catholic fulness in the sense that St Ignatius of Antioch taught, then I should contend that the term is meaningless. The Council's use of the term then reduces to the simple affirmation that the orders and sacraments of the Eastern Orthodox Churches are technically "valid".
Of course, the notion that orders or sacraments could in any sense be "valid" and real outside the communion of the Catholic and Apostolic Church has always been bewildering to me. To understand the language of "true particular Churches" to refer simply to sacramental validity does remove the contradiction of admitting a real division between genuinely Catholic local Churches, but only at the price of introducing the equally contradictory notion that the Church's covenanted mysteries can exist and be real outside the Church.
Thank you for this clear exposition of the faith of the Church. Bravo!
Continuing my response (to my other correspondent):
Also: I do not see how the excerpts from Catholic documents that you provided show what you intended them to show (that the Council does not teach that the separated Churches are a manifestation of Catholic fulness). The first quote [Unitatis Redintegratio I, 2] is clear that the Petrine supremacy is of the essence of the Church. But that does not show that there is no contradiction; it shows only that one term of the contradiction is present in the Council's teaching. It does not show that the other term of the contradiction is absent from or explicitly excluded by the Council's teaching.
The other term of the contradiction is shown simply by the use of the term "true particular Church," which I take to be a clear reference to the ecclesiology of St Ignatius of Antioch. I cannot see how a "true Church" can be anything other than a "Catholic Church" nor how any community which did not possess Catholic fulness could be described in any way as a "true Church." Since the very meaning of the word "Catholic" is the possession of the fulness of the faith and the mediation to the faithful of the fulness of the divine life ("the fulness of Him Who fills all in all"), a Church cannot be "partly Catholic" or "mostly Catholic". How can "true particular Church" mean "a true Church, but not a Catholic Church"?
This is why, while this conciliar teaching was no doubt intended as a gesture of ecumenical good will to the Orthodox, the Orthodox have not returned the favour. To do so would be to compromise their own confession of the Catholicity of the Church. Which, of course, is what it seems to me that the Catholic Church has done.
Concluding my response (to my other correspondent):
Finally, your second quote from Unitatis Redintegratio [I, 3] is perhaps the greatest puzzlement of all. For after admitting the validity of Orthodox orders and sacraments, Unitatis Redintegratio makes the curious statement that "For it is only through Christ's Catholic Church ... that they [viz. the Orthodox] can benefit fully from the means of salvation"; indicating that the sacraments ("the means of salvation") among the Orthodox, though valid, do not provide the "full benefit" that God has promised to give His people through the covenanted mysteries.
So in an Orthodox Divine Liturgy, the Eucharist is valid, so the Lamb of God lies slain upon the altar and the true body and blood of the Saviour is given to the faithful, but they do not receive the "full benefit": they do not receive the mysteries for the absolution and remission of their sins, nor unto life everlasting, and instead of the medicine of immortality, the body and blood of the Saviour is, for them, a sort of placebo.
I do not think that that is what the Council fathers intended; but that is what is implied by what they wrote. Orthodox Churches are "true" Churches, but not Catholic Churches; and their sacraments are "valid" sacraments, but do not provide their "full benefit".
I still think there is a deep contradiction here.
Chris
Chris:
I do find that both Lumen Gentium and the Responses document contradict earlier Catholic teachings. I know that the Catholic position is that Lumen Gentium is a development, rather than a contradiction, of earlier teachings. But the arguments in favour of that position are simply not persuasive to me. The Responses document, in any case, does not argue for, or demonstrate, that "development" position; it simply asserts it.
That's why I produced arguments to show that the assertion is justified, and thus that the charge of contradiction you make is false. Ratzinger himself has often discussed this topic, including but not limited to Dominus Iesus.
If the term "true particular Church" does not imply Catholic fulness in the sense that St Ignatius of Antioch taught, then I should contend that the term is meaningless. The Council's use of the term then reduces to the simple affirmation that the orders and sacraments of the Eastern Orthodox Churches are technically "valid".
To call the sacraments of a given church (which include orders) "valid" is to say that they occasion grace ex opere operato and thus channel what they signify. The Council's use of the term 'true, particular churches' does indeed entail affirming the validity of Orthodox sacraments, but the affirmation is not limited to that. The Responsum itself reiterates that "It is through the celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord in each of these Churches that the Church of God is built up and grows in stature." Thus, it is not merely that their sacraments work ex opere operato, but that the economy of such churches is a genuine "means of salvation" for their members. All they lack is whatever in the economy of salvation is afforded by full communion with the Roman See.
For you, however, that last seems to be an empty category. The following helps to explain why:
The other term of the contradiction is shown simply by the use of the term "true particular Church," which I take to be a clear reference to the ecclesiology of St Ignatius of Antioch. I cannot see how a "true Church" can be anything other than a "Catholic Church" nor how any community which did not possess Catholic fulness could be described in any way as a "true Church." Since the very meaning of the word "Catholic" is the possession of the fulness of the faith and the mediation to the faithful of the fulness of the divine life ("the fulness of Him Who fills all in all"), a Church cannot be "partly Catholic" or "mostly Catholic". How can "true particular Church" mean "a true Church, but not a Catholic Church"?
[continued below]
The paragraph of mine discussing 'subsists in' and 'substance' can and should be read as answering precisely that last question. From that answer, one may conclude any true, particular church must at one time have been in full communion with the Catholic Church in order to have been constituted as a true, particular church in the first place. That's what Ignatian ecclesiology shows, especially in the context of the disputes with the Judaizers and the Donatists. But it does not follow, nor has the Catholic Church I recognize as such ever taught, that a given church is a true, particular church just in case it is in full communion with the Catholic Church. Otherwise one would have to say that a given church's sacraments and orders stand or fall with its orthodoxy, which indeed is what you seem to believe, but which Catholic ecclesiology has never held to be true and is a matter of dispute even within the Orthodox communion. I do not believe that your own opinion about what catholicity consists in, or even your own opinion about what the Catholic Church believes catholicity consists in, in any way constitutes an argument that the present definitive teaching of the Catholic Church contradicts her past definitive teaching.
Best,
Mike
It can be a living part of that Church, belonging properly to her, while being detached from the subsistent whole and thus deficient, with many consequences. And so the critique's argument is fallacious.
It may perhaps be pertinent to mention Acts 19:1-7. St Paul runs into some people Luke specifically terms "disciples" though they had only received the baptism of John and had not even heard of the Holy Spirit.
There is no question, at least in my mind, that a genuine development in Catholic ecclesiology occurred in the decades preceding and following Vatican II. This is not surprising. The 20th century saw unprecedented Catholic reflection on the nature of the Church, in light of biblical and patristic studies and ecumenical engagement. Names such as De Lubac, Congar, and Bouyer immediately come to mind. And this reflection continues today. Hence the need for the new CDF document.
Chris Jones asserts that the ecclesiology of Vatican II represents a reversal of authoritative Catholic teaching, yet clearly the Council Fathers did not see it this way nor does the present Pope. If Chris wishes to presuade, he needs to provide weightier evidence than so far adduced. Upon what scholarship is he relying? Who are his authorities? Clearly it is insufficient to note that a change has occurred. One most establish that this change violates the deep grammar of Catholic principles and self-understanding.
The problem is that only someone who has internalized this Catholic grammar is in a position to judge. One must first become fluent in a language before one can accurately identify its grammatical and syntactical rules.
Chris rightly notes that Vatican II offered a more positive assessment of Orthodoxy and even Protestantism than found in, say, the Catholic Church of the 19th century. But what he fails to see is that this alteration in perspective was itself made possible by Catholic ecclesiological principles--namely, the long-held Catholic view of sacramental validity. It is precisely the absence of this distinction in Orthodoxy, e.g., that has made it so difficult for Orthodoxy to acknowledge the ecclesial reality of the Catholic Church. Hence the scandal--a scandal, of course, only in Catholic eyes--of those Orthodox communities that rebaptize Catholics and reordain Catholic priests.
I have to be honest. I haven't read much of a negative reaction from most Orthodox so far. I am personally fine with the document. It's not very far removed from the Orthodox position although obviously I think we are right and Rome is wrong. But I also see the document's primary intended audience as being Roman Catholics not those of us in defective or wounded sects/churches. To the extent that this provides clarity of position in the ongoing theological discussions it is a positive. I guess I just don't see anything here to get bent over.
ICXC
John
Mike,
I think the gist of our disagreement is in this exchange:
How can "true particular Church" mean "a true Church, but not a Catholic Church"? ...
... The paragraph of mine discussing 'subsists in' and 'substance' can and should be read as answering precisely that last question.
I have now read through your paragraph on "subsists" and "substance" several times, and I do not think it satisfactorily answers my question at all. The key concept in that paragraph is that integrity is of the essence of a "substance", and therefore is part of what is being referred to by the verb "subsist". So far so good.
That concept explains well why unity with Rome (as a sign and (correct me if I am wrong) the means of that necessary integrity) is so important to the RC understanding of catholicity. But it does nothing to explain how a community that is cut off from that integrity could possibly be in any sense "true" or continue to share in the substance of the integrated whole. A limb or organ which is cut off from the body dies -- quickly. It does not continue to live and thrive for a thousand years.
It seems to me that your argument does not take seriously the reality of the schism, the fact that from the RC point of view the Orthodox are cut off from the unity of the Catholic Church. Maybe I do not understand the concept of ex opere operato, but to me it simply refers to the objectivity of the sacraments despite the theological or moral failings of the ministers. I do not think the concept can or should be used to advance the proposition that the sacraments can exist outside the Church.
Isn't a Church breathing with only one of its lungs also "wounded" and, if not defective, at least to that extent less than fully effective--and lacking in the fullness that true unity would bring?
And doesn't that Church itself--and many of her princes--bear a large share of the responsiblity for the disability of separation?
Thank God for JPII and, hopefully, B16, who have (at least a number of times) stressed the papal primacy as being that of servus Dei servorum rather than of jurisdictional supremecy. This is the example Our Lord Himself set by girding Himself and washing Peter's feet and teaching him and us to do the same for each other. "Greater love hath no man than this: that He should lay down his life for his friends." "As I have done for you, even so should ye do for each other." "This is My commandment that ye love one another." "By this shall all men know . . ."
Charis & shalom,
robert+
One wonders what is missing if Orthodoxy is acknowledged to have a valid apostolic succession and valid sacraments, since we can also add that it would hardly be serious to claim She fails to teach and live the Faith once delivered. I concur with Chris Jones in not seeing an answer in your analysis, Mike, to what the "consequences" ("many," no less) to Orthodoxy of being out of communion with the Pope might be. As I said on Fr. Stephen's blog, this is something which Rome leaves unsaid, as it must.
Phil, I appreciated your comment on Fr Stephen's blog. I think there is a sense in which what is lost by separation from the Bishop of Rome cannot be adequately stated but can only be left unsaid. But this does not mean, I think, that this loss is in fact nothing, for it is a loss of something which Christ (so Catholics believe) intends for his Church--namely personal, sacramental unity with the successors of Peter.
The good of this unity has been ably explicated by many. I have found Vladimir Soloviev's *The Russian Church and the Papacy* and Hans Urs von Balthasar's *The Office of Peter* perhaps most helpful on this question.
Orthodox may not feel the loss of separation from Peter nor see any negative consequences to continued separation--but that does not mean there are no negative consequences. I would identify one decisive benefit of union with the Pope--strength to resist and stand against culture and state.
Is Lumen Gentium discontinuous with teaching of pre-conciliar church? Not obviously discontinuous with its practice at least. Pius IX invited the eastern Orthodox bishops to Vatican I - and he invited them as valid bishops. (They did not accept!) Not something he was prepared to do for Anglican 'bishops', which were not then, and are not now, recognised as such. Was he not addressing the Orthodox bishops as pastors of 'true particular churches' - what else is a valid bishop bishop of? - in schism with and so unfortunately detached from the one Church founded by Christ? So where is the real discontinuity with Vatican II, which surely was only trying to interpret the tradition of the Catholic church in line with its historic practice.
Christ spoke of one Church. Given the fissiparous nature of human associations, the mark of continuity of the one Church He founded is reasonably to be expected to be a continuity of final authority: a place where the buck stops and has always stopped. It is in this sense, I believe, that the RCC can claim to "be" the Church. This sense of "be" is admirable denoted by "subsist" as Dr. Liccione has pointed out.
In this sense (among others) I should have said. The eucharist is the source of the Church's life: continuity of the eucharist relies on continuity of the apostolic succession via holy orders. Thus the retention of eucharist is a mark of continuity of apostolic succession. This is not the whole story, of course, with respect to the nature of the Church, as I tried to point out in the last post.
@Fr. Al Kimel,
"The problem is that only someone who has internalized this Catholic grammar is in a position to judge. One must first become fluent in a language before one can accurately identify its grammatical and syntactical rules."
Wittgensteinian Fideism is a desperate refuge indeed. I'm not RC, but this doesn't preclude my understanding how the claim about papal infallibility is used within the theological discourse of RCism. Trying to immunize RCism from criticism by claiming that you have to be an insider to really "get" sounds cultish. "Kneel and kiss my ring and all will be revealed." I'll keep my protestantism, thanks.
@Dr. Liccione,
I'd be interested in reading your thoughts about the council of florence's pronouncements about heretics, pagans and schismatics. (Look at Session 11, round about paragraph 14, link.)
I know you have treated this issue several times in your discussions of "extra ecclesiam nulla salus." But I am not persuaded. The council of florence seems crystal clear to me: if you are a schismatic, then you can't get eternal life. If you are a protestant you are a schismatic, ergo, etc. Maybe there are blurry edges for weird cases about people who intended to be baptized, but died en route, etc. but the general thrust of the thing seems to be clear.
Right. When one attends a typical Novus Ordo Mass the first impression one gets is of a Church which has the strength to resist culture. Moving Holy Days to the weekends to make things easier for the faithful - what a resistance! No divorce, of course, but annulments for $450 or so; 60,000 each year in America. Mother Teresa getting her picture taken with a quarter of the world's dictators. JPII kissing Korans at prayer meetings and being serenaded by scantily clad native dancers at a Mass.
Yes, of course we Orthodox are just as guilty. Black Bart buddy buddy with Castro and all. The horrible treatment of Arab Orthodox in Israel by the Greek Orthodox Church there in league with the Israeli state. The library at St. Vladimir's Seminary financed by a guy in waste management, which, ah, well, all you TV watchers have seen the Sopranos. And we have in our Orthodox ranks many who collaborated with evil states, so I suppose I should not blame those who ignore Orthodox contributions to the Christian witness against the state – that Orthodox produced more martyrs in the 20th Century than all other Christian communions combined (you have JPII as your anti-communist hero, we just have a bunch of mundane Martyrs with names like the archpriest Vasily - you know, the kind who had plump wives with bad teeth),or that the 7th Ecumenical Council was the victory of the Church over the Byzantine Empire and that the sobor of early 20th century Russia would have been the Church's victory over the Tsars. Those things comfort only our faithful, those who find us defective would rather focus on jurisdictionalism or some such thing. So be it. This weekend I will go to my sacramentally "valid" Divine Liturgy and as the Gospel book is carried through the Holy Doors while the choir and congregation sing the Beatitudes in a 700 or 800 year old liturgical tone which is based on an 1100 year old liturgical tone, I will think about the sign of contradiction this is against modern Western culture – not because the music is old, but because God’s mercy is always new, and because we cannot even approach God’s Kingdom until we have become poor in spirit, a condition not well facilitated by mass culture, but which will be well imaged at Liturgy. I hope, and I write with sincerity, that my RC friends have a similar experience at church this weekend.
Fr. Kimel - thanks for the reading suggestions.
Mike, the continuity of which you speak seems to me to be one of "My Pope, right or wrong, My Pope"; and this may be a way to finesse any discrepency between earlier Popes and later Popes. All that matters is today's Pope. Which is fine, until one says that the Papacy is some low-beta bulwark against fashion and trend.
I find this latest explication of Lumen Gentium/Dominius Iesus to be actually encouraging, a sign that my mixed Protestant/RC life may actually have some coherence after all.
First, with regard to scholasticus and Fr. Kimel: For heaven's sake, scholasticus, Fr. KImel has been searching for the Catholic Church his whole life, now he's found it, give him a break.
Second, with regard to "development", if you are a committed RC, you need "development" to understand all this change. The arrival of the internet and the present availability of all the "unchanging" doctrines of the Roman church on the internet (compare and contrast) means the end of simple faith in the lack of change. Yes, there have been changes, none more profound than the recognition that the Master does not necessarily follow the servants, but rather He leads them.
Third, the path of development flowing from Lumen Gentium is not at an end. Nor is the evolution of evangelical Christianity at an end. The "mainstream" daughters of the Reformation are dying, while non-Roman Christianity is exploding. Much of what Rome has to say is important, and clearly correct. But they are saying (I think) that it is Christ who saves, and they are seeing Him working now OVER THERE, albeit through a glass darkly.
Let me say also to Fr. Kimel, God bless you, and thank you for Pontifications, which has meant so much to me and I'm sure to others.
But what he fails to see is that this alteration in perspective was itself made possible by Catholic ecclesiological principles--namely, the long-held Catholic view of sacramental validity.
Exactly!
As Father Stanley Jaki points out, it also flows from the Church's early recognition (contra Cyprian) of the validity of Trinitarian baptism administered by heretics.
On another forum, someone pointed out the following:
Shortly after the Schism (whenever we define that as having occurred!), the Orthodox comprised about 50% (or more) of all Christians.
Today they comprise less than 10%.
I do not know whether this is true. But, if it is, it scarcely supprts the argument I hear so often, viz. that Orthodoxy "gets along just fine" without a pope.
"anon" above is moi, Diane. So solly!
Fr Kimel:
Thanks for contributing. I hope you don't remain scarce.
Best,
Mike
Chris:
On reading your latest, it seems to me that the real "gist" of our disagreement is over the notion of degrees of communion. Your view seems to be binary: a given church is either "in" the Church, and thus manifests the fullness of catholicity, or "outside" the Church, in which case it may be a church in the institutional sense but not in any salvifically significant sense. At any rate, that would explain why you find it hard to see (a) how the older, traditional Catholic teaching is compatible with the developed one, and how (b), on Catholic ecclesiology as I expound it, a church lacking full communion with Rome could live as a church in a salvifically significant sense.
As for (a), note that Rome has always seen the Orthodox churches, both before and after the schism, as true, particular churches in the sense explained in the Responsum. That view does indeed depend crucially on the notion of sacramental validity, which Orthodoxy has never shared in quite the same sense. But as Diane pointed out, the notion of the validity of baptism by heretics is not exactly recent. For both reasons, the criteria by which Rome identifies as true, particular churches some churches lacking full communion with her cannot be dismissed as mere innovations introduced as "repentance" for her earlier treatment of Orthodoxy. And it seems one can only depict those criteria as inauthentic developments if one rejects the idea of doctrinal development altogether. But that, as you know, is another debate we've had.
As for (b), I think you're riding my analogy a bit too hard. It is indeed true that a human limb or organ cut off from the body dies quickly unless preserved by artifice, perhaps by being frozen. That in fact is just how some Catholics see Orthodoxy, but I'm not sure that's the best way to see it; one could perhaps come up with a fictional analogy illustrating my point better. E.g., I recall watching the series Star Trek: Deep Space Nine in which one of the main characters, Constable Odo, was a member of the generally close-knit "Dominion" collective cut off from that body yet retaining most of its characteristic powers, such as that of being "changelings." He lived tolerably well in that state, serving the Federation not least because he disagreed in conscience with his own people's effort to dominate the rest of the galaxy. But he always felt that something important was lacking to him as a result; a few episodes even focused on the forms that took. On the principle that truth is often stranger than fiction, it's possible at least to imagine something like that being true of the "Eastern" and the "Oriental" Orthodox churches.
[continued below]
My main point is that the notion of "degrees of communion" is quite conceivable given ancient Catholic principles. Some people, such as you and scholasticus, seem to think that the resulting ecclesiology of Lumen Gentium is incompatible with Unam Sanctam and Cantate Domino. But it is not. If being "in" the Church can be a matter of degree, then so can being "outside" the Church. On that picture, to be outside the Church in a way that precludes salavation, i.e. completely, would have to involve one's being morally culpable for disunity with the See of Rome; for God does not condemn anybody for faults that they aren't, at some point, morally responsible for. And that's just what Rome now teaches: it cannot be presumed, of any given non-Catholic Christian, that it's their fault they aren't Catholic, so that one can't characterize their lack of communion with Rome as complete. At the same time, one can say that whatever is salvific in the ecclesial bodies to which they belong actually derives directly or indirectly from "the" Church, i.e. the Catholic Church, drawing its life-principle therefrom. So,extra ecclesiam nulla salus remains true, but refined by pastoral good sense.
Best,
Mike
scholasticus:
Re the part of your comment directed to me, see the last paragraph of my reply to Chris just above. I have indeed debated these issues almost ad infinitum with various people, including some Catholic discontinuants. What I almost invariably end up finding is that their understanding of what Rome is saying departs from Rome's own understanding. For reasons that should be obvious, I prefer the latter.
That does not mean, however, that "Wittgensteinian fideism" is my or Fr. Kimel's redoubt. We aren't saying that one must believe what the Catholic Church teaches in order to understand it well enough to assess it; that indeed would beg the question entirely. What we're saying is that it's quite difficult for non-Catholics to immerse themselves in the grammar of the faith enough to understand it well enough to assess it. Heck, it's difficult even for many Catholics; for the majority of them have been poorly catechized and inculturated. But just as a matter of general principles, one has to understand one's opponent's position thoroughly in order to criticize it fairly; and I've rarely seen such understanding among critics of the Church's ecclesiological doctrine, regardless of their church affiliation.
Best,
Mike
**I do not know whether this is true. But, if it is, it scarcely supprts the argument I hear so often, viz. that Orthodoxy "gets along just fine" without a pope.**
Why do comments like this one see the light of day??
Stephen:
Mike, the continuity of which you speak seems to me to be one of "My Pope, right or wrong, My Pope"; and this may be a way to finesse any discrepency between earlier Popes and later Popes. All that matters is today's Pope. Which is fine, until one says that the Papacy is some low-beta bulwark against fashion and trend.
I'm afraid I can't find much substance in that complaint. The papacy has been and remains an unquestionable "bulwark against fashion and trend" in many areas, especially morality. It is true that Paul VI and John Paul II were not reliable bulwarks against fashion and trend in liturgy, and some aspects of the N.O. were not as "continuous" with past liturgical practice as many of us, such as the present pope, would have desired. But I don't quite get how that is supposed to generate an argument against papal authority; after all, abusus non tollit usum. That the present pope is trying to correct what many Catholics, but by no means all, see as mistakes in liturgical praxis by his most recent predecessors could just as well function as an argument for papal authority as against.
Best,
Mike
To "contra Diane:"
One might disagree with the stat Diane cites, and even with the point of hers that is based on it. But her comment is not abusive and is quite pertinent to the thread. Thus it does not merit deletion.
Mike L., in your post on "degrees of communion," in which there is much with which to agree, I am troubled by this statement:
This legal/forensic model of salvation-condemnation is not entirely satisfactory and had led to no end of trouble in the West. It seems to me the extra ecclesiam nulla salus means rather that only way to eternal life and victory over death, the only way to repairing one's human faults and weaknesses, be they moral or otherwise, is through union with Christ, in Whom alone the one grafted-in may partake of the fullness of the divine Life and virtue of the Holy Trinity. This grafting into Christ is accomplished in Baptism and nourihed in the Eucharist and other Sacraments and witnessed by the Church militant, suffering and triumphant which is His corpus verum.
Charis & shalom,
robert+
If Fr. Al's position as it is articulated in the comment above is not Wittgensteinian Fideism, then nothing is. I do not say that Fr. Al is a bad person or that catholicism is a bad religion, just that this kind of argument is a lame one and that he ought to come up with a better one.
@Dr. Liccione
I have read your series on EENS, but as I said I'm unpersuaded. Obviously it is impossible to lay out all of my hesitations and responses here, but someday I'll sit down and try to write something up on my own blog in response. Till then, I'm afraid we are at a deadlock--you are claiming that if I understood the grammar of catholicism that sometimes I'd realize "you cannot go to heaven unless you are a catholic" means "some people who are not catholics can go to heaven." I am unimpressed by this line of argumentation, for obvious reasons, one of which we be observing the historical use of statements such as those of the Council of Florence, which authorized the execution of protestant dissenters. (This was back before the RCC was opposed to the death penalty.)
To pick up on the Ochlophobist’s point, “strength to resist and stand against culture and state” is not an exclusive preserve of the Papacy. As much as there is to admire in the strength of character and love for the Faith of Benedict and John Paul II, the practical reality is, we are one Pope away from serious trouble. Investing one man with final teaching authority is, after all, a double-edge sword. All it will take is one papal letter “re-examining” or “calling the Church to discern” the notion of women in ordained ministry, for example, to undo a consciousness of infallibility and, with it, most of the underpinnings of the Roman Communion. Of course, if the Church is guarded against error by the Holy Spirit, we won’t need to worry about this, no matter who succeeds Benedict. But the scenario is quite tangible.
It seems Orthodoxy’s model, in contrast, holds up at least as well, if not better. What it contains – and what is arguably more consistent with the infusion of the Holy Spirit – is the sheer bloody-minded obstinacy of its culture. In the words of Frederica Mathewes-Green (from The Illumined Heart), “I hope not to say anything original. If I do, ignore it.” Multiply that by several hundred million, and add an ethos that the whole Church must speak for some position to be authoritative, and I have no problem envisioning a robust stand against modernity. Some will raise the question of contraception, but is this even under consideration by Orthodoxy (as opposed to being the topic of comment by this or that Orthodox author)? This is, in fact, the point: not only is the deck stacked against a change in Orthodox teaching, it’s stacked against the Church as a whole even bothering to address the question systematically in the first place. Rather than being invited in for a conversation, during which it can practice the powerful seduction it has used to so badly damage other institutions, modernity finds the Orthodox won’t even answer the door. I like that approach.
scholasticus:
Given how much you've followed the writings of Fr. Kimel and myself, it is at best merely querulous, and at worst downright insulting, to charge him with making a patently question-begging argument and to charge me with implying that the Council of Florence meant the opposite of what it said. I shouldn't be surprised, though, given that your reaction to my last post on priestly celibacy was to ask whether I was taking nocturnal emissions into account, as if that weren't obvious from what I had said.
Fr. Kimel can speak for himself, of course. But I shall point out for the umpteenth time why US and CD did not define anything incompatible with the ecclesiology of Vatican II. They defined that unity with, and thus being subject to, the Roman See is necessary for salvation; whatever they might have thought such unity and submission consists in, they did not define what it consists in. And so, on the question they did not define, there remained room for development. That's what the Fathers of Vatican II thought, and that's what the present pope, who had been present and active at the Council in another capacity, also thinks. That you disagree with them says more about your own deficiencies in logic than about theirs.
Scholasticus, I do not know if my argument is properly construed as Wittgensteinian fideism or not, though I think not. I suggest rather that the discernment of authentic development is more art than logic, though of course the development will be seen as eminently rational once recognized as authentic.
Who is in a position to recognize a theological development as authentic? Surely only those who have been thoroughly formed by the theological tradition and the liturgical and ascetical practices of the Church. This isn't gnostic nor even peculiar to theology. One might make a similar point about advances in physics, for example.
Hence when a non-Catholic declares that the ecclesiology of Vatican II radically departs from the fundamental ecclesiological principles of Catholic religion, then I think it is appropriate to suggest that the individual is probably not in a position to make that kind of judgment. I think it far more likely that the Council Fathers enjoyed a grasp of Catholic religion and theology far superior to that 99.99% of non-Catholics.
Mike,
The comment is a red herring, plain and simple. Why are the Orthodox so outnumbered? Try Islam and Communism.
Phil:
I have actively sought from the Orthodox an answer to the question where Orthodoxy stands on contraception. In only one case did I get a straightforward reply, and other Orthodox disagreed with it. Their replies in turn amounted to rejecting the question or changing the subject, in ways consciously intended to cast a bad light on Catholicism. I was and remain unimpressed with that.
I'm sure you're right that what keeps Orthodoxy intact is "the sheer bloody-minded obstinacy of its culture." But unlike you, I am not at all persuaded that that is a sign of the Holy Spirit's certification of Orthodoxy as "the" true faith. I do see it a sign that what Orthodoxy preserves is true and good; but in no sense do I see that as evidence against Catholicism. Thus, although you're right that we're "one pope away" from seeing the Magisterium discredit itself by reversing itself on a point of definitive doctrine, I have argued at great length that that hasn't happened; and as you point out, "if the Church is guarded against error by the Holy Spirit, we won’t need to worry about this, no matter who succeeds Benedict." When I was in the process, as a young man, of choosing between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, I found that fact about the former much more impressive than the cultural obstinacy of the latter.
Best,
Mike
Ochlophobist and Phil,
Ditto!!
Mike - you may be right. I want to be clear that I'm not arguing that Orthodoxy's culture is "evidence against the truth and goodness of Catholicism," which I recognize and for which I have nothing but respect. I'm just arguing that the "strong CEO" model is not necessarily better than a "strong corporate culture" model at resisting change. In my experience, the latter often defeats the former, as many new CEOs brought in to "shake things up" learn.
Robert Bearer:
I actually agree with the theology in your most recent comment, and I don't believe that the legal/forensic model is incompatible with it—especially since you didn't manage to post the "statement" you claim to be troubled by.
Best,
Mike
Did I misquote? Just in case, I don't see Orthodoxy's culture as "evidence against Catholicism," either. Maybe a small piece in a larger argument, but it says nothing by itself.
@Fr. Al and Dr. L.,
I am not trying to be difficult, nor am I suggesting that the Pope and the CDF haven't read their church history. What I am trying to point out is the sheer breadth and ambivalence of that tradition. I have no dislike of Catholicism, but I have an enormous disdain for historical amnesia and overeasy harmonizations. My goal is simply to point out these ambivalences within the catholic tradition to people who seem intent on forgetting them.
You seem to have set yourself the task of proving the consistency of catholicism. Suppose you succeed in this task, i.e. you come up with a way to construe all the de fide propositions which avoids formal contradiction. What would you have achieved by this? I suppose you would have blocked a formal refutation of catholicism--or perhaps you get a chit that you can try to use in catholic apologetics--consistency as a mark of divine origin or something. But you will have ignored, reinterpreted and spun countless historical realities. What did the Fathers of Trent take their decisions to imply about the salvation of protestants? How did those theological decisions translate into practical political actions?
Now it isn't at all clear to me that you have actually succeeded in proving the consistency of all the different de fide propositions. But to move the conversation forward at this point will require me to show exactly what i disagree with in your harmonizations and why. I'm in the middle of moving from europe to america, so that conversation will have to wait.
all the best,
s
p.s. the question about nocturnal emission was not a spurious one. Just because a question seems silly to a modern reader doesn't mean that it seemed silly to a medieval one. Two quick examples:
One of the most important christological question at the end of the 13th century was whether the eyes of christ after his death and before his resurrection were to be considered numerically one with his eyes after his resurrection. This question's importance comes from its link to the idea of whether there is a single substantial form of the body or multiple substantial forms and Thomas Aquinas was nearly excommunicated for his answer to it.
A second example: if souls are non-corporeal and fire is corporeal, how can souls be burnt by hellfire? this question was vigorously debated at the beginning of the 14th century and, as far as I can tell, it seemed to the people debating it to be a very weighty problem indeed.
You or I would not think twice about the problem, nor would we think twice about moral culpability for noctural emission, but that doesn't mean everybody has always agreed.
Mike L.,
The portion of your comment that I had tried to post (I don't know where it went) was:
Is it because once the box is full, one can't put anymore in? Strange my quotation of your remark and my comment on it didn't seem all that long. But I can see how my comments makes no sense with yours to which it was directed (asterisks inserted).
rlb+
scholasticus:
You seem to have set yourself the task of proving the consistency of catholicism. Suppose you succeed in this task, i.e. you come up with a way to construe all the de fide propositions which avoids formal contradiction. What would you have achieved by this? I suppose you would have blocked a formal refutation of catholicism--or perhaps you get a chit that you can try to use in catholic apologetics--consistency as a mark of divine origin or something. But you will have ignored, reinterpreted and spun countless historical realities. What did the Fathers of Trent take their decisions to imply about the salvation of protestants? How did those theological decisions translate into practical political actions?
As the etymology of the term indicates, the purpose of apologetics is the "defense" of the Faith—not to "prove" the truth of the faith, which isn't really possible; indeed, it would be incompatible with the virtue of faith to insist that it is possible. Now in my experience, the most common sort of charge made against the Catholic Faith is that, in this or that respect, it is internally inconsistent. Hence, I devote the bulk of my apologetical work to defending the Faith against that sort of charge, by rebutting the arguments used to press it on various issues. As your position illustrates, the EENS issue is a staple of such work.
It's rhetorically impressive, but logically lacking in substance, to point out that certain "historical realities" are thereby "ignored, reinterpreted and spun." The important questions are: what has the Church actually taught in a definitive manner thus taken as binding on Catholics, and how are those teachings to be interpreted? We disagree about the content of the answers in part because we disagree about what is relevant to coming up with them. At bottom, such a disagreement is philosophical in nature. But until we can agree on the answers, we cannot usefully discuss the question whether the Catholic Faith is actually true.
Best,
Mike
Fr. Al said:
***I think there is a sense in which what is lost by separation from the Bishop of Rome cannot be adequately stated but can only be left unsaid. But this does not mean, I think, that this loss is in fact nothing, for it is a loss of something which Christ (so Catholics believe) intends for his Church--namely personal, sacramental unity with the successors of Peter.***
I think Fr. Al's point can be best understood if we view the problem of "lack" in terms of what the world lacks because of the schism. Since the gospel is not only about the benefits that individuals and/or churches recieve by way of communion with Christ, but also about being put in a better position to reflect the image and glory of God *to the world*, if I were Catholic, this is the line of argumentation I would employ to show what the Orthodox lack, even if they are granted all the acclamations accorded to her by Rome, by being out of communion with Rome. Christ's prayer that we all be one so that the world may believe that the Father sent him seems to be at the heart of this issue. Both communions continue to produce saints, both command the worship of God and the adoration of the Mother of God, both inspire the guy in the pew to love his family and his neighbor, but because of separation the world will not believe.
Dear Contra Diane (let me guess: you're a member of the Contras named Diane...?):
I anticipated your response, actually. No, I'm not prescient. I've simply seen it before. A few hundred times or so.
I submit that it is not an adequate response.
First of all, IMHO, there is no such thing as mono-causality. Just as there is more than one "cause" for, say, the French Revolution, so there is more than one cause--nay, more than two causes, even--for the drastic numerical decline of Orthodoxy. Islam and Communism are certainly factors. But they are not the only factors. (If they were, Greece--which has not suffered from either Islamic or Communist domination--would still have full churches, not empty ones; and pre-Soviet Russia would not have seen the rise of secularist philosophies such as nihilism and, well, all that other stuff one finds in 19th-century Russian novels. 
)
Clearly there are other factors that also play a role in the decline of Orthodoxy. One of those factors, I would suggest, is the lack of a pope.
Y'all can't have it both ways. Y'all can't say, "We've gotten along just fine without a pope," and then make lame excuses when it is pointed out that, in fact, y'all haven't gotten along quite as well as you claim.
A huge historical shift such as the numerical decline of Orthodoxy is far too complex to be explained by only one or two alleged causes--especially when those one or two causes affected only part of the Orthodox world (and one of the causes did not even exist as a factor 100 years ago, when Orthodox decline was already well underway).
"(If they were, Greece--which has not suffered from either Islamic or Communist domination--would still have full churches, not empty ones; and pre-Soviet Russia would not have seen the rise of secularist philosophies such as nihilism and, well, all that other stuff one finds in 19th-century Russian novels. )"
Uh, Diane,
Greece was dominated by Islam for 400 years and after WWII had a bloody civil war against communists.
It could also be debated that Nietchze and pals are "western" creations which the "east" imported and which set in motion the Bolshevik Revolution.
And I do not believe you to be so unawares as to believe that truth is sheerely correlative to size otherwise I just may have to become a Mohammedan or Mormon. But of course, you don't believe that, do you?
Frankly, I think that the RCC would be well served to follow our lead and do some downsizing. Y'all might start with the Barney Mass priest. Just a suggestion!
But, of course, ochlophobists like myself are never fond of crowds. No pop phrase concerning Catholicism scares me more than "here comes everybody."
Does haloscan not permit one to cut and past in another's remarks for reference?
I've tried it twice; the cut and past has shown in the box, but not appeared as "published" either time.
rlb
och: Ahhh, that infamous Barney Mass. But wait, it was actually a priest dressed in a Barney outfit, outside the context of Mass, IIRC. IOW, again IIRC, he did not actually celebrate Mass in his Barney regalia. But what do the facts matter, right? You'll get rhetorical mileage out of that one alleged "Barney Mass" till doomsday. :D
uh, a..sinner: So? Greece now has empty churches solely because of those factors you mention? The impact of modernity, secularization, the lack of a pope, none of that had anything to do with it? And of course the very fact that socialism could gain such influence in Greece...that does not reflect at all on Orthodoxy, right? It was simply an Act of God, imposed from without, and a prior erosion of faith and praxis within that historically Orthodox country had nothing to do with it. OK. Whatever.
Every incovenient fact can be explained away exclusively by Islam and Communism...a sort of two-headed Deus ex Machina. That's convenient, I suppose. 
Diane
P.S. BTW--do you think Western Catholics faced no challenges from enemies within and without during the past 1,000 years? Of course we did. I'll see your "bloody Communist civil war" in Greece and raise you a few in, oh, Mexico, Spain, Latin America. Not to mention two World Wars. And Communist control of Poland and other Catholic parts of Eastern Europe. Yet we now account for about 53% of the Christian population, according to the same post I alluded to earlier. Draw what conclusions you may.
I am not trying to bash Orthodoxy. But it is a simple fact that it has declined dramatically and is still declining worldwide, while Catholicism is growing. Make of that what you will. But please spare me the triumphalistic claim that the Orthodox have "done just fine" during the milliennium following their rejection of the papacy. That dog won't hunt.
ISTM y'all again want to have it both ways. You lob all kinds of specious criticisms at the Catholic Church (viz. och's cracks about those allegedly ubiquitous Barney Masses)...but you pitch a right good fit as soon as someone points out the obvious, i.e., that the Practically Perfect Orthodox have problems and issues of their own. It's a simple matter of fairness and honesty...something about stones and glass houses.
Regards,
Diane
Diane, I don't think your last paragraph is really fair. Ochlophobist did throw out a few of Orthodoxy's blemishes in an earlier post.
Again, on the numbers, we were told during last month's papal trip to South America (who knows if you can trust the media, though) that Pentecostalism is booming in, say, Brazil and eating into the RC population. Am I supposed to conclude something from that?
I think the Great Commission commands us to grow the Church, but I'm not sure our relative success or failure at a given point in history is an accurate measure of our truth claims.
Mike,
Is there any chance we could resume pertinent discussion of the Vatican's document?
Phil: I agree. I was responding simply to the claim that Orthodoxy's lack of a pope has had no ill effects.
But I also agree with Joseph that it's time to move on.
Diane,
My point to you was simply and only to correct your facts on the situation in Greece specifically. As well, I drew attention to the logical fallacy that numbers do not necessarily signify truth although they may.
I made no attempt to argue in either direction as to whether Orthodoxy's lack of a pope was beneficial or detrimental.
And following your use of "mono-causality" I framed my citing of the Bolshevik Revolution(which you cite in your reference to "19th century Russian novels)as perhaps possibly
having roots tied to western philosophies which in turn have their roots in the soil fostered in the Schlolastic West. But as others have said, these things are not the point of Mike's thread.
As you well pointed out, the causes for the large size of the Roman Catholic Communion and the(in comparison) small numbers of the Orthodox Catholic Churches are myriad and reserved within the unfathomable depths of the wisdom of our Creator. And you failed to mention the innumerable empty Roman Catholic churches in Western Europe.
As to speaking numbers specifically and what they may or may not signify, the growth and decline is not at an end and I would rather suspect that many more sweeping changes will take place globally(history as of this writing has not been wrapped up) and whether the Roman Catholic Communion continues to enjoy her numerical "superiority"(once again if numbers as such signify superiority; I am not making that claim nor denouncing it) remains to be seen.
Me? Where I stand? May the beautiful Light that is Orthodoxy never go out. May one Orthodox bishop exist somewhere, anywhere, in the world, who has kept the Faith. And the faithful gathered around him, there will the Church Catholic be in Her fullness.
Joseph:
Discussion pertinent to the new CDF responsum will resume if and when certain other parties, such as scholasticus, Mr. Jones, and Fr. Kimel, weigh in again. I've already replied to the most recent comments of the first two.
I note in the meantime that I agree with what you said in your response to Fr. Al. I'm not sure that's all that can be said about what's "lacking" to Orthodoxy, or to Catholicism for that matter; but it's certainly true as far as it goes, and it's quite a major truth.
Best,
Mike
Robert Bearer:
As you can see for yourself, I and others have had no trouble retaining cut-and-pastes from other comments in the text of our own comments. I don't know how to explain the problem you're having. It could be that you're leaving out or messing up a simple step.
Best,
Mike
Mike,
I did put in a fairly thought-provoking (I thought) post a little earlier. I was hoping someone would recognize it and comment further on it!!!
Mike,
It looks like you modified your comment while I was posting my last one.
Mike,
Since from your above response to Robert you are in the mood to help us deficient computer users, could you help a fellow sinner out and explain(if possible) how to italicize and make bold writings(and perhaps even explain how one goes about accomplishing pasting smiley faces?) I'm a bit jealous that I cannot do these things.
Sophocles (the sinner, that is):
1.To bold an expression, precede it immediately with the word 'strong', bracketing said word with carats (< and >) instead of the single-quotation marks I've used to set off said word. End the expression the the same way, only adding a forward slash (/)between the first carat and the word 'strong'.
2. Italic: same as above, but use the letter 'i' instead of the word 'strong'.
3. Haloscan's smiley characters can be found here: http://www.haloscan.com/help/Ava...vailableSmileys.
Best,
Mike
Mike,
You're the best. Thanks a bunch
Mike,
It worked!! Thanks again, I really appreciate it.
On another note: drats.
My secret identity has been uncovered. My loved ones will never again be safe from the clutches of my villainous enemies.
For once I am in agreement with you. But your reponse to the traditionalist email you quote is a bit question-begging. It did not accuse the CDF of contradicting Vatican II but of contradicting Unam Sanctam (1300 AD); of course traditionalists see Vatican II itself as contradicting previous tradition.
scholasticus sees Wittgenstein fideism in Fr Kimel's allusion to the deep grammar of Catholicism. I see rather the influence of Newman's "Idea" underlying doctrinal development. This is an excellent answer both to the discontinuists who see Vatican II as a sheer about-face in Catholic thinking and the integrists who see it as betraying the precious heritage of Boniface VIII.
Fr Kimel wrote:
"I think it far more likely that the Council Fathers enjoyed a grasp of Catholic religion and theology far superior to that 99.99% of non-Catholics."
A logically fair enough statement. But Fr., how does that square with your - and many other's - head scratching from Pontifications as to how those same Council Fathers let happen - or actively promoted - the liturgical and doctrinal fallout post Vatican II? I believe you said at least once this remained an area of bafflement. Should it not remain so?
The Novus Ordo is widely viewed as a disaster -- hmmm. Now we are undertaking a fearful experiment: new literalist translations of the English and wide availability of the Tridentine Mass as well.
If this turns out to dissipate the liturgical malaise, well and good.
But if it doesn't? If the malaise only deepens?
Michael -
Very interesting thread you have going here. I agree with your post. I have not read all of the comments thoroughly so perhaps this has already been observed, but it seems to me that those who desire to see discontinuity (and I do mean that I think in general it is a pre-commitment) in Church teaching support their false dichotomies not simply because of poor philosophy but also because of a faulty Christology/soteriology and anthropology and what these mean for ecclesiology.
As much as it pains me to do so, I wish to note the accuracy of Fr O'Leary's observation that Newman, not Wittgenstein, underlies my thinking on the question of theological development ... and perhaps also a little bit of Michael Polanyi.
I wish also to explicitly acknowledge a fundamental presupposition: I trust the Catholic Church when she definitively defines doctrine. This does not mean that I believe that doctrinal formulations cannot be improved, refined, etc.; but I do trust the Catholic Church in her apprehension of the apostolic deposit of faith. If I did not so trust her, I would not be Catholic. Nor do I apologize for this trust. I would rather put my trust in the Magisterium of the Church than put my trust in individual historians, theologians, philosophers, and biblical scholars. That is why I am Catholic and not Protestant.
And this, to return to our topic, is the significance of the CDF document: to assert that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church is to assert that the Catholic Church is worthy of our allegiance and obedience. This assertion of the authority of the Catholic Church directly challenges the ecclesiological, theological, and moral relativism of Protestantism, as well as many Catholics.
It is of course natural to suppose that we all have our pre-dispositions which will influence relative valuation of ideas and actions; but we can't just toss up our hands and say to each other "You only came to that conclusion because you ultimately wanted to." We have to give each other the benefit of the doubt that we are in search of the truth, and so some ideas/faith MUST be closer to the truth than others, and upon this realization change our ideas perhaps in spite of our predisposition.
Hence the gap between Os on the one hand, and Cs of any stripe on the other. Cs may argue about the NO and Vatican II as being continuous, or not; for Orthodox, the existence of this intra-C conversation is just one more sign of the centuries-long discontinuity of the West.
Stephen:
You have a penchant for a kind of intellectual ju-jitsu that looks good but is ultimately a hollow gesture. Allow me to explain.
I recall that, some months back at Pontifications, you took the logical care and terminological precision of one of my arguments as evidence against its conclusion. I don't recall the exact words or topic, other than that it was about ecclesiology, as usual; but your point was that if I needed to exhibit such logical care and terminological precision to make my point, then my point was suspect for that very reason. In my reply, I wondered aloud whether you would have found my point more plausible if my argument had been careless and imprecise. In any case, I actually do recall remarking that I was damned if I did and damned if I didn't. It should have gone without saying, of course, that that result was not an argument against my position; it was evidence that you didn't have an argument against my position.
I now observe you trying the same sort of move. Thus:
C[atholic]s may argue about the NO and Vatican II as being continuous, or not; for Orthodox, the existence of this intra-C conversation is just one more sign of the centuries-long discontinuity of the West.
Your point, I take it, is this: the mere fact that there's a debate among Catholics about whether certain ideas and practices of the recent past are continuous or discontinuous with the Great Tradition shows the Orthodox that "the West" as a whole is discontinuous with the Great Tradition; therefore, the position of continuants such as myself is untenable from the Orthodox point of view. That's not quite as lame as your older move, to be sure; but it's close. Once again, we continuants are damned if we do and damned if we don't. If we don't debate, that is taken as evidence that we don't have an argument and thus that the discontinuants are right. If we do debate, then the mere fact that there is a debate indicates that all the parties to the debate all really discontinuants anyhow; so once again we continuants lose, if only by pretending to be the opposite of what we really are.
If you expect anybody to take such an argument seriously as an argument, as opposed to an expression of prejudice, you are seriously mistaken. Explaining why would be of general interest.
If there is doctrinal and liturgical development, the question then arises how to distinguish authentic, healthy developments (AHDs) within the Great Tradition from inauthentic, unhealthy ones. I take it for granted that there have been AHDs in both East and West, and in the past I have given a fair number of examples. We may also take for granted that all AHDs, by definition, are "continuous" with the Great Tradition. Why, then, regard the mere fact of debate among Catholics about whether certain developments are truly AHDs as evidence that Catholicism has long been discontinuous with the Great Tradition? Such a debate constitutes such
Such a debate constitutes such evidence only if one believes that the ongoing doctrinal and liturgical development in the West stopped being healthy at a certain point in the past and instead, being discontinuous with the Great Tradition, guaranteed that future "development" would fail to qualify as AHD. In other words, the debate itself functions as the sort of evidence you think it does only if one assumes a rather standard Orthodox critique of Catholicism as the truth. But surely you cannot expect me, or the other Catholics here, to make that assumption. Nor can you expect even educated Orthodox to see in your move anything more than an expression of how things look to somebody who assumes that Catholic distinctives are false. All you're doing is begging the question.
I grant you've been pretty slick about it. But slick is not the same as on target.
Best,
Mike
Contra Diane and a...sinner:
If our gracious host will indulge me for a moment, I would like to revert to an earlier point.
This afternoon I asked my (Byzantinist) historian husband whether the several centuries of Ottoman domination were indeed responsible for the fact that Greece today is laregly secularized, with relatively few churchgoers. He said absolutely not. Under the Ottomans, he said, Greek Orthodoxy flourished; indeed, the Church became the means for Greeks to preserve their culture, both religious and national. "A hundred years ago," my husband said, "I'm willing to bet that most Greeks went to church." I asked him why he thought that religious participation had declined so precipitously since then. He said that, in his view, Greece had responded to the same secularizing forces which have swept much of the rest of Europe.
IOW, the numerical decline of world Orthodoxy cannot be exclusively attributed to "Islam and Communism."
Once again, then, it becomes fair to ask: Have the Orthodox really "gotten along just fine" without a pope, as so many of my Internet interlocutors claim?
Of course I realize that some historically Catholic counties have become radically secularized, just as Greece has, although not perhaps to the same extent. But the question is about the numerical strength of Catholicism as a whole versus that of Orthodoxy. Catholicism is in vibrant growth mode, especially in parts of the Third World. Orthodoxy, apparently, is in decline, despite pockets of vibrancy here and there. You can make of this what you will--and I concede that it is a complex, multi-causal phenomenon--but I would submit that you cannot plauisbly infer from it that Orthodoxy is "getting along just fine" without a pope.
Re the argument about the explosive growth of Pentecostalism: Well, as someone who hangs out with some very nice Pentecostals (I live in the Bible Belt), I can testify that the Pentecostals are growing, partly, because they are doing one thing right. They are evangelizing. Aggressively and wholeheartedly. They take the Great Comnmission seriously, and I'm not sure that is a bad thing. We Cathodox might do well to emulate it. (In Africa and parts of Asia, the Catholics do seem to be emulating it--with impressive success.)
However--and this is just my personal opinion--Pentecostalism's hold on its converts may not last more than a generation or so. This is because the sort of Pentecostalism which is spreading and flourishing today--the "Prosperity Gospel"--has a dark underside, as well as some of the most bizarre beliefs in Christendom. Among fervent, fundamentalist Pentecostals, God seems to have relatively few grandchildren. Even among the Pentecostals I know best, the kids struggle with (and often reject) the parents' bizarre beliefs--and I cannot say that I blame them, really. So, in other words, we should perhaps not infer too much from the recent explosive growth of Pentecostalism. I would argue
continued from above....
However--and this is just my personal opinion--Pentecostalism's hold on its converts may not last more than a generation or so. This is because the sort of Pentecostalism which is spreading and flourishing today--the "Prosperity Gospel"--has a dark underside, as well as some of the most bizarre beliefs in Christendom. Among fervent, fundamentalist Pentecostals, God seems to have relatively few grandchildren. Even among the Pentecostals I know best, the kids struggle with (and often reject) the parents' bizarre beliefs--and I cannot say that I blame them, really. So, in other words, we should perhaps not infer too much from the recent explosive growth of Pentecostalism. I would argue that it is perhaps doomed to be a short-lived phenomenon...while Catholicism, OTOH, grows steadily and consistently, expanding one place while it declines in another, just as it has for 2,000 years.
-------------------
A related side note: Catholicism and Orthodoxy both have far greater "staying power" than Pentecostalism, partly because we are not hampered by the severely truncated Gospel and the wildly heretical beliefs of "Health and Wealth" and "Word of Faith" Pentecostalism. If you ask me, we have a golden evangelistic opportunity here---to go into areas that have been successfully evangelized by the Pentecostals and to bring a fuller, more historically rooted Christianity to those who will accept it. IOW, we can water the seed the Pentecostals have already planted. Catholics, I think, are prepared to do this: We have a venerable tradition of missionary outreach, which is still very much alive among indigenous priests, nuns, and laity in (for instance) India and Africa (I know of some outstanding examples, esp. in India), even if it has lately degenerated into religious indifferentism among certain secularized Western missioners, like the Maryknollers.
God bless,
Diane
ML - I'm not trying to be slick, but seek to convey that this is what some Orthodox think about the intra-RC dialogue. Of course, RCs might not give a hoot about anything Os think, as of course some things said are not worth giving a hoot about. But it is incumbent upon any Churchman to ask, foremost within his own communion but also among Os and RCs (to my mind,at any rate), How did things come to be the way they are? So when Os see the Pope trying to rectify a situation caused by another Pope, sure our prejudices will lead us to more likely conclude that it has something to do with the Papacy. Prejudices or not, is it true? What does that mean if it is true? If RCs expect Os to buy what you're selling, these are fair questions to ask. For, if this situation that needs to be rectified is due in some way to the Papacy, shouldn't we talk about? Especially as we are simultaneously called deficient, though I certainly do not want us to have go through the liturgical reforms of your non-deficiency these last 40 years.
Stephen:
Looking at history with a modicum of objectivity, even as a Catholic I can see many serious mistakes made by the papacy. In the course of my blogging career I've named some of them myself. Indeed, the present pope has long agreed with you and with some Catholics, including myself, about how problematic the post-Vatican-II liturgical reform turned out to be. And obviously that was "due in some way to the papacy." But what, in the last analysis, does all that really show?
If you have an argument, it seems to be that having a central authority for the Church as a whole, i.e. the papacy as Catholicism understands it, is a bad idea because the mistakes made by such an authority mess up the Church as a whole, not just a local church or a synodal region. It's true that mistakes by the papacy do that; but it hardly follows that the papacy as Catholicism understands it is a bad idea. For the good things done by the papacy can and do improve things for the Church as a whole, as well as making it less likely that local and synodal problems fester for want of a higher authority to resolve them. Indeed, one of the reasons I'm Catholic is that the advantages of such an arrangement outweigh, to my mind, the disadvantages. I'm not offering that right now as an argument for Catholicism; my aim in this thread is merely to rebut a certain sort of argument against Catholicism. And that's what I think the facts as I describe them provide.
What's thereby provided will, of course, fail to constitute an argument for Catholicism in the eyes of somebody who thinks that the disadvantages of a central authority in the Church outweigh the advantages. But that's OK. My main point is simply that the mere fact that papal mistakes affect the Church as a whole, which everybody recognizes, is not by itself an argument against the papacy. The debate, if there's going to be a debate, has to be about whether such a disadvantage is outweighed by the advantages. Of course, I doubt that you and I would entirely agree about what constitutes the advantages. That is why I suspect that the real debate would only illustrate, rather than resolve, the differences. And it's at that level that the choice must be made.
Best,
Mike
Mike, I appreciate as ever your charity and generosity. You write "My main point is simply that the mere fact that papal mistakes affect the Church as a whole, which everybody recognizes, is not by itself an argument against the papacy." If the Papacy served primarily as a court of last resort, as an institution loathe to appoint bishops and a supporter of subsidiarity, as an encourager, or an admonisher, then I - and if I'm not so bold to say not a few Orthodox - would be more inclined to agree with you. But that is not how modern Catholicism and Popes see the role of the Papacy. It is much more aggressive and centralizing. In just the last 100 years we've seen the wholesale consolidation of appointing bishops under the Papacy (the spokes to hub), any number of changes to the timing of the reception of sacraments, yadda yadda, you know the spiel.
Further, if I understand you right, you're saying "you go your way, and I'll go mine, we'll leave it at that and call each other brother". But both our churces view the other as somehow off the mark, so it won't be left at that.
Stephen:
You've read quite enough of my stuff to know that I am keen on working toward Christian unity. E.g., I don't discuss ecclesiology and triadology, generating ample reaction from and discussions with the Orthodox in the process, just to indulge an abstract personal interest in those topics. They need to be broached in ways that create space for resolving differences or, when that is unlikely, for clarifying what's at stake enough to distinguish what's real and essential in the issues from what's artificial and polemical. That's what I try to do. Discussion of the papacy is a primary, if not the primary, example of what I mean by such a procedure.
I'm glad you've said what you just did about the papacy. For none of the things you mention as obstacles to your agreement with me are essential to the papacy's Petrine ministry in service of the whole Church. They have developed over a long period of time for understandable historical reasons, and could in principle be changed. Thus I agree that, in principle, the papacy could function as you would prefer; that's pretty much how it did function in the first millennium; and it probably will have to function that way once again if there is to be any hope of healing the schism between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. I don't have a problem with that in principle. But in today's environment, trying to decentralize papal authority swiftly or wholesale would be an even bigger shock to the Catholic Church than Vatican II and its aftermath were. Catholics haven't even absorbed that shock yet; the real purpose and nature of the conciliar reforms remain obscure to many Catholics because of all the discontinuant spin from both the Left and the Right. Indeed, given what Western culture in general has become, decentralization of authority in the Catholic Church now would produce even more chaos than that which you have not hesitated to identify and criticize before.
That's why I believe that the papacy's current degree of centralization, while not essential in principle, serves a good purpose. To sum up, it's not as bad at the present historical moment as the alternative would be. Yet, since Christian unity is a duty the Pope recognizes, both he and his predecessor recognize that there will eventually have to be a reconfiguration. Sooner or later it will be obligatory to find, in the words of Ut Unum Sint, "a way of exercising the primacy which, while in no way renouncing what is essential to its mission, is nonetheless open to a new situation." If the attitude you've expressed in your previous comment were widespread among Orthodox and Protestant leaders, such an ecumenical discussion would already be underway and bearing fruit. Unfortunately, that discussion has barely been joined by those non-Catholics who need to be party to it.
Best,
Mike
Mike, there may be Option B for the Papacy. It's the Big Risk, no doubt about it, but sticking with Option A, as you argue, might only get you more of the same. What is Option B? It's the Pope with the Orthodox against materialism. The Pope lets it go. He releases his grasp on the second-millenium claims of the Papacy, and in so doing rallies the Orthodox (western and eastern), and gives everyone - bishops, clergy, laity, agnostics, everyone - a clear choice. Here it is, the Church of Christ, weak and downtrodden - take it, embrace it, but if you don't, (not you ML, but the general "you"), hey that's your choice, but you'll feel dishonest if you approach our chalice and pretend to yourself that you are somehow in communion.
Stephen:
Sounds good, but I'm not sure what you mean by "the second-millennium claims of the papacy." Papal claims to supreme jurisdiction over the whole Church go back to at least Leo the Great in the fifth century; and given the general practice prior to that, such claims were no mere innovations even then. Rome is simply not going to revoke such claims, or indeed any proposition she has dogmatized. What I have in mind is what I believe the present and the previous pope have had in mind: trimming back the exercise of such primacy to something much closer to the general practice in the first millennium, which is basically what you described in your previous comment. As tough and radical as that would be for Catholics, for the reasons I've stated, it's less radical than what you seem to be proposing now.
Best,
Mike
Diane,
It's "a..(2 dots)sinner" not "a...(3 dots)sinner"--very important in light of all the rest of the world shaking stuff we're talking about
As to:
"This afternoon I asked my (Byzantinist) historian husband whether the several centuries of Ottoman domination were indeed responsible for the fact that Greece today is laregly secularized, with relatively few churchgoers. He said absolutely not. Under the Ottomans, he said, Greek Orthodoxy flourished; indeed, the Church became the means for Greeks to preserve their culture, both religious and national. "A hundred years ago," my husband said, "I'm willing to bet that most Greeks went to church." I asked him why he thought that religious participation had declined so precipitously since then. He said that, in his view, Greece had responded to the same secularizing forces which have swept much of the rest of Europe.
IOW, the numerical decline of world Orthodoxy cannot be exclusively attributed to "Islam and Communism."',
I'm with you and I agree. I myself never attributed the empty churches in Greece solely to Islam and Communism. That being said, as to the effect of Islam and Communism, this to me is not the time or thread to open up discussions specifically aimed at this and I believe contra-diane stated what he stated also without intention of more fully elaborating his position at this particular time.
And again, I made no mention whatsoever about Orthodoxy's health with or without the pope.
I posted what I posted only to correct this specific portion of your comment:
"If they were, Greece--which has not suffered from either Islamic or Communist domination".
I did not elaborate at all as to what ratio of blame for the emptying of the churches in Greece should be put on Islam and/or Communism.
You seem to have set yourself the task of proving the consistency of catholicism. Suppose you succeed in this task, i.e. you come up with a way to construe all the de fide propositions which avoids formal contradiction. What would you have achieved by this? I suppose you would have blocked a formal refutation of catholicism--or perhaps you get a chit that you can try to use in catholic apologetics--consistency as a mark of divine origin or something. But you will have ignored, reinterpreted and spun countless historical realities.
I think that this is fair enough as far as it goes, but it does not go far enough. It is true that what Catholics attempt to do vis-a-vis our own tradition (that is, to read the words of our dogmatic texts with lawyerly precision so as to reconcile apparently contradictory claims by wrenching them from their native interpretive contexts and fixing them into new "magisterial" contexts) is appalling to the Orthodox. That said, we are obliged to do this because of the nature of our magisterial tradition.
The strange thing, however, is that the Orthodox are obliged to do exactly the same thing, they just do not realize it. St Matthew's appropriation of (the LXX's) Isaiah's "the virgin shall conceive" is every bit as much a betrayl of the prophet's text as Dr L's reading of Florence is of the original Florentine decree. Nonetheless, both the Catholics and the Orthodox respond to this anachronism with an insoucient "what of it?" The Orthodox let this sort of thing pass without blinking because it happened millenia ago, not in the 1960s. It is only when the development of doctrine is noticed creeping around still that certain voices on the Orthodox side of the divide shout "veto." In this, however, they are being profoundly inconsistent. If doctrinal development really is no good, then it is not just Roman Catholicism that is bunk - Christianity in general will have to go.
Greg:
I'm glad you brought up the LXX's and Matthew's treatment of Isaiah 7:14. To take the same point further, I've long thought that the way the NT treats the OT seems to elicit the same kinds of objections from serious Jews that the RC idea of development of doctrine elicits from the Orthodox and conservative Protestants. That's led me to suspect that the process of collectively appropriating divine revelation is analogous to that of the unfolding of divine revelation itself throughout the biblical period.
Best,
Mike
Greg de Lassus---that is a keeper. May I quote you? (With proper attribution, of course.)
Commenting by HaloScan
