...At least in the sense generally understood by Christians in communion with the Pope of Rome.
Apparently a large number of (big 'C') Catholics and ecumenically minded Orthodox have been disconcerted by the glorification (canonization) of St. Justin Popovic of Celije by the Serbian Orthodox Church, whose ceremony of glorification was held today. It would appear that St. Justin's principal shortcoming was that he lacked the ecumenical spirit. He was hostile (polemically so) to the non-Orthodox in general and Roman Catholicism in particular. One of his better known quotes was...
"In the history of the human race there have been three principal falls: that of Adam, that of Judas, and that of the pope."
Such is unlikely to go over well in the modern age when the answer to all differences is tolerance and endless dialogue.
Now in fairness, I am not a huge fan of polemics. I have never seen anyone converted by insulting them. Still, all of the hubbub now spreading in the blogosphere (I count no less than five blogs that I regularly look at addressing this subject within the last 24hrs) raises an important question. How does St. Justin's position fit in with the opinions of the other Orthodox saints? How does it fit with the historic teachings of the Orthodox Church?
The answer, unfortunately for the kumbaya crowd, is quite well.
I might have chosen other ways to express the point, but the fact remains without exception that no Orthodox saint of the post-schism era has ever even hinted that the Christian West was/is anything other than heretical. We can try and dance around this all we want, but there it is.
None of this of course means that Roman Catholics are evil people. Nor does it mean that we can have nothing at all to do with them. Many members of my family are Catholic. And I still have a great deal of respect for some aspects of the Roman Church including their many charitable works and their heroic witness for life and and against the encroachments of radical secularism. Further, I remain convinced that +Benedict XVI is the best thing to hit Rome in a very long time.
What it does mean is that they are not Orthodox, and we are not simply misguided Catholics who don't realize that we really don't disagree on the important issues. And it is time for people on both sides to stop pretending otherwise. I am a strong supporter of strategic cooperation with the RCC where such is possible and without compromising the Faith. However as far as ecumenism is concerned, I rather support the view of the Bulgarian Church, whose Holy Synod recently concluded that more than four decades of ecumenical dialogue with Rome have proven utterly fruitless and thus have suspended their participation in the every year or two photo-ops over champagne and expensive food in very picturesque locals.
In the end, St. Justin's offense was to rather undiplomatically point out that we don't in fact belong to the same church in large part because we don't believe the same things. Those who try to get around that are going to have to overcome the unanimous concurrence of at least the last five centuries worth of Orthodox saints.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
28 comments:
Fr. Justin Popovich simply expressed what he saw as true...even if it wasn't.
His canonization is simply an expression of Serbian phyletism, understandable after the collapse of the "Greater Serbia" dream foisted on Serbia by cynical greedy people.
Since you are, yourself, a convert. how can you, in all logic accept what is, historically and theologically, a willfully ignorant attitude?
Anonymous,
St. Justin's opinion might be so easily dismissed were it not fully inline with the views of every Orthodox saint for the last five centuries at the least. If you believe all Orthodox saints are "willfully and theologically ignorant" I can only assume that is why you are not Orthodox.
In ICXC
JOhn
His canonization is, although not simply, an expression of all Orthodox hearts, because St. Justin was a wonderful example of true holiness.
Anastasia,
Indeed.
Christ is risen!
John
John,
Excellent post!
Anastasia,
Yes!
Anonymous,
Have you read St. Justin?
"I might have chosen other ways to express the point, but the fact remains without exception that no Orthodox saint of the post-schism era has ever even hinted that the Christian West was/is anything other than heretical. We can try and dance around this all we want, but there it is."
Clarity is something I always appreciate, even if what is thus expressed so clearly is not to my liking (to say the least).
I am a catechumen of the orthodox church, was a Protestant before and now I thank God daily for the true Church. Protestantism means that one can create your own church, and can create your own God. Orthodoxy is the true church; the liturgy soaks us in scripture. It is wonderful to see the worship of God by everyone in the Church.
I was once at an ecumenical conference of church historians and church archivists in Rome, and at the end of it we went to dinner at a local restaurant, and visited a local church, for Vespers, we were told. But it turned out to be Mass, and a Roman Catholic member of the conference said we could all take communion, which surprised most of the Protestants, but they did receive communion, and afterwards asked why we Orthodox didn't.
I explained that even if it had been an Orthodox Church we wouldn't have received communion, because we'd come into the church straight from a substantial dinner. And secondly, our bishops were not in communion with the Pope of Rome (the local bishop of the church we were attending) and to pretend that they were, or that we could be without them, would be acting a lie. St Justin was simply telling the truth.
This thing cuts both ways, of course. The Orthodox have been none too happy, to say the least, over the beatification of Cardinal Stepinac, with the accompanying revision of history. And then there are popes like Pius IX and Pius XII...
Holy Father Justin, pray for us sinners.
Anonymous said...
I am a catechumen of the orthodox church, was a Protestant before and now I thank God daily for the true Church. Protestantism means that one can create your own church, and can create your own God."
The schismatic tendency of Protestantism is a continuing reaction to the Roman Church. There were valid reason for the Protestant Reformation. Should we lose the Way, God may correct Orthodoxy through a similar revolt. Sin is powerful and at work even now in our members; a humbling reality.
john,
honestly. if you're going to post snarky things like this, you could at least have the intellectual honestly to stop crying about Catholic "snark" like you did here: http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/2010/03/clarity-on-ecumenism.html
why are the Orthodox the only ones allowed to be indignent when the other side is un-ecumenical? i'm assuming you don't care if you come across as hypocritical to a heretical Catholic like me, but don't you want to convert more people to the bride of Christ? catch more flies with honey...
Mike,
Did you post the right link? I read the linked post a couple of times and find that it dovetails quite well with my current one. Truth and clarity are good things. I am not a fan of polemics or "snark" on either side. But clarity is important as I noted then and repeated last night.
I do however concur that one can make a point firmly while remaining within the bounds of charity. Again I think I noted that in both posts.
Yours in ICXC
John
You really should read this.
http://www.helsinki.org.rs/doc/keith%20Doubt%201.pdf
Sorry...but the Serbian Orthodox Church has a lot to answer for.
I think it is sufficient to say that both Roman Catholics and Orthodox have at various times in history been involved in some pretty horrible things. With that said, let's try and stay on topic here. Please refrain from posting comments or links to other sites not related to the post. If we are going to go off on tangents and start pointing fingers over atrocities, both real or alleged, this could go on forever.
I think you're right that the normative Orthodox view is that Catholicism has strayed into heresy. But I'm curious as to which of the major differences are considered heretical, as opposed to, well, just differences.
The jurisdiction and teaching authority of the Bishop of Rome as set out in the two Vatican councils I assume would be considered heresy.
The double procession of the Holy Spirit--does the Latin concession, that the Spirit does not proceed from the Son as the Spirit proceeds from the Father--I think the proposed formular was "proceeds from the Father through the Son"--satisfy Orthodox objections today?
I am under the impression that the Orthodox have objections to the Augustinian formulation of Original Sin, but obviously not to the more general sense that there was a universal fall from which there must be a redemption. Does the western doctrine of Original Sin fall into the category of heresy?
Just curious. I know there are many differences. But which differences, in your view, are those necessitating separation, and which are acceptable variations (like leavened vs. unleavened bread in the Eucharist)?
It's much too easy to use the term "heresy".
It simplifies things, obviously, but doesn't lead to much understanding.
There is a significant difference between the Roman Catholic understanding of Holy Tradition and the Orthodox understanding. Holy Tradition for the Orthodox is not mediated through the Papal office.
The Treasury of Merit alone is enough for any Christian to separate from Rome.
Rick, the answers to your first two questions are no and yes.
Regarding the third, we don't have a logic-chopping bifurcation involving (1) things that are necessary for salvation and (2) everything else. To an Orthodox, the totality of Holy Tradition is required for salvation; everything is necessary. Zymes are necessary. Icons are necessary. Incense is necessary.
One of the reasons why we really don't have anything to talk about with the RCs is their tendency to see our Church as an ethnic and aesthetic phenomenon, like their Unia.
"To an Orthodox, the totality of Holy Tradition is required for salvation; everything is necessary. Zymes are necessary. Icons are necessary. Incense is necessary."
To say all are necessary isn't to avoid the distinction between necessary and contingent, but to draw the line at a particular place.
Would our host here agree with all that?
Rick,
Welcome to the circus. Since you asked for your host's opinion on...
"To an Orthodox, the totality of Holy Tradition is required for salvation; everything is necessary. Zymes are necessary. Icons are necessary. Incense is necessary."
I would respond that I think you are confusing tradition with Tradition and further confusing Tradition with Dogma.
Not all traditions carry the same weight. I know of few Orthodox who would argue that incense is necessary for salvation. And while the veneration of Holy Icons is affirmed as good by an OEcumenical Council, I don't believe that the failure to employ them in worship is damning. The subject of "Zymes" is one where you will find some diversity of opinion within Orthodoxy. File this under theologumena. That said it is generally understood that such is necessary for a grace filled (read "valid" if you wish) Holy Communion.
Christ is risen!
John
I really dislike throwing around that word, "heresy," even if I privately may think it is. The word, besides being loaded, ought to be reserved for a doctrine that is formally defined as such. That's something the Orthodox Church, from tact mixed with hope, has declined to do so far wrt the Roman errors.
Errors. That's how we regard the doctrines concerning the pope, original guilt, purgatory, unleavened bread, filioque, etc., etc.
That said, these egregious errors concerning the pope so permeate and are embedded in all the rest of Catholic theology that we find little if any of it unaffected. Little if any, therefore, is acceptable.
This always seems to surprise Catholics, who appear to be under the impression that the their theology and ours is all but identical.
Is the criterion of "defined doctrine" an Orthodox one?
"Is the criterion of "defined doctrine" an Orthodox one?"
Yes. The dogmatic pronouncements of the OEcumenical Councils are definitive and binding.
Christ is risen!
John
I didn't ask whether ecumenical enunciations were defined doctrines.
I'm asking if the Orthodox criterion for a valid belief is whether it's "defined". In the case of whether the RCs are heretics, however, we don't really have to answer that question after the publication of the 1848 Encyclical.
As an Inquirer and admirer of Orthodoxy I find the following byline sums up my understanding of it. Ecumenism: The Heresy that keeps on giving.
As to what traditions play an important role in our salvation? Ask yourself how much change is permitted before something is no longer what it once was. Bah! No-more bread and wine, just bread. What does it matter if the Holy spirit always was or came after the Father and the Son? Is the Idea that Christ was not the only human to be borne sinless, or should his Blessed Mother share the distinction?
The Orthodox race to Rome is pointless without working out all the nasty bits.. Unless, of course Truth is the accepted casualty by the desire of a selfish few to form a one-world church based on lies and accepted half-truths.
Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me a sinner.
In WWII, Catholic Croats killed more than million Orthodox Serbs in Jasenovac and Gradiska death camps. Role of Catholic clergy and Vatican was great in this. Aloza Stepinac, Catholic leader who inspired this action is today canonized saint in Catholic Church.
In middle ages Vatican forcebly converted hundreds thousands of Serbs who became known as "croats" from that point, even though they speak Serbian language.
To us, Serbs that was really clear warning. They can change rethorics however they want, we know their deeds and their real intent.
Post a Comment