The “Immortality” of the soul (part 1)

Introduction.

Are Christians, as Christians, necessarily committed to the belief in the Immortality of the human soul? And what does Immortality actually mean in the Christian universe of discourse? These questions are by no means just rhetorical ones. Etienne Gilson, in his Gifford lectures, felt himself compelled to make the following startling statement: "On the whole," he said, "Christianity without an Immortality of the soul is not altogether inconceivable, the proof is that it has been so conceived. What is, on the contrary, absolutely inconceivable, is Christianity without a Resurrection of Man." The striking feature of the early history of the Christian doctrine of Man was that many of the leading writers of the second century seem to have emphatically denied the (natural) immortality of the soul. And this does not seem to be an exceptional or extravagant opinion of certain writers only, but rather the common teaching of the age. Nor was this conviction completely abandoned in a later age. Bishop Anders Nygren, in his famous book, Den kristna karlekstanken genom tiderna, praises the Apologists of the second century precisely for this courageous statement and sees in it an expression of the true Evangelical spirit. The main emphasis was then, as in Nygren's opinion it should ever be, rather on the "Resurrection of the body" than on the "Immortality of the soul." An Anglican erudite of the 17th century, Henry Dodwell (1641-1711, one-time Camden "Praelector" of History in the University of Oxford), published in London a curious book, under a rather bewildering title:

An Epistolary Discourse, proving, from the Scriptures and the First Fathers, that the Soul is a Principle naturally Mortal; but immortalized actually by the Pleasure of God, to Punishment; or to Reward, by its Union with the Divine Baptismal Spirit. Wherein is proved, that None have the Power of giving this Divine Immortalizing Spirit, since the Apostles, but only the Bishops (1706).

Dodwell's argument was often confused and involved. The main value of the book, however, was in its immense erudition. Dodwell, probably for the first time, collected an enormous mass of information on the early Christian doctrine of Man, even if he could not use it properly himself. And he was quite right in his contention that Christianity was not concerned with a natural "Immortality," but rather with the soul's supernatural Communion with God, "Who only hath immortality" (1 Tim. 6:16). No wonder that Dodwell's book provoked a violent controversy. A formal charge of heresy was brought against the author. Yet, he found some fervent supporters. And an anonymous writer, "a Presbyter of the Church of England," published two books on the subject, presenting a careful study of the Patristic evidence that "the Holy Spirit (was) the Author of Immortality, or Immortality (was) a Peculiar Grace of the Gospel, (and) no Natural Ingredient of the soul," and that "Immortality (was) preternatural to Human Souls, the Gift of Jesus Christ, collated by the Holy Spirit in Baptism." What was of special interest in that controversy was that Dodwell's thesis was opposed chiefly by the "liberals" of that day, and his greatest literary opponent was the famous Samuel Clarke, of St. James, Westminster, a follower of Newton and a correspondent of Leibniz, notorious for his unorthodox beliefs and ideas, a typical man of the age of Latitudinarianism and Enlightenment. It was an unusual sight: "Immortality" contested by an "Orthodox" and defended by a Latitudinarian. In fact, it was rather what one should have expected. The belief in a natural Immortality was one of the few basic "dogmas" of the enlightened Deism of that time. A man of the Enlightenment could easily dismiss the doctrines of Revelation, but could not afford any doubt on the "truth" of Reason. Gilson suggested that "what is known under the name of the "Moralist" doctrine of the 17th century was originally a return to the position of the Early Fathers and not, as seems to be usually believed, a manifestation of a libertine spirit." As a general statement, it is untenable. The whole situation in the 17th century was much more complex and mixed up than Gilson apparently surmised. Yet, in the case of Dodwell (and some others) Gilson's guess is fully vindicated. There was an obvious "return to the positions of the First Fathers."

The Soul as “Creature.”

St. Justin, in his Dialogue with Trypho, tells the story of his conversion. In his quest for truth he went first to Philosophers, and for a time was fully satisfied with the teaching of Platonists. "The perception of incorporeal things quite overwhelmed me, and the Platonic theory of ideas added wing to my mind." Then he met a Christian teacher, an elderly and respectable man. Among the questions raised in the course of their conversation was that of the nature of the soul. We should not call the soul immortal, contended the Christian. "For, if it were, we would certainly have to call it unbegotten also," i athanatos esti ke agennitos. This was, of course, the thesis of the Platonists. Now, God alone is "unbegotten" and immortal, and it is for that very reason that He is Divine. The world, on the other hand, is "begotten," and the souls make part of it. "Perhaps, there was a time when they were not in existence." And therefore they are not immortal, "since the world has appeared to us to be begotten." The soul is not life by itself, but only "partakes" of life. God alone is life, the soul can but have life. "For the power to live is not an attribute of the soul, as it is of God." Moreover, God gives life to souls, "as He pleases." All created things "have the nature of decay, and are such as may be blotted out and cease to exist." Creatures as such are "corruptible" (Dial. 5 and 6).

The main classical proofs of immortality, derived from Phaedo and Phaedrus, are disavowed and declined, and their basic presuppositions openly rejected. As Professor A. E. Taylor pointed out, "to the Greek mind athanasia or aftharsia regularly signified much the same things as "divinity" and included the conception of ingenerability as well as of indestructibility. To say "the soul is immortal" would be for a Greek the same as to say "it is uncreated," i.e., eternal and "divine." Everything that had a beginning was bound to have an end. In other words, for a Greek, "immortality" of the soul would immediately imply its "eternity," i.e., an eternal "pre-existence." Only that which had no beginning could last for ever. Christians could not comply with this "philosophical" assumption, as they believed in Creation, and therefore they had to deny "immortality" (in the Greek meaning of the word). The soul is not an independent or self-governing being, but precisely a creature, and its very existence it owes to God, the Creator. Accordingly, it cannot be "immortal" by nature, i.e., by itself, but only by "God's pleasure," i.e., by grace. The "philosophical" argument for (natural) "immortality" was based on the "necessity" of existence.

On the contrary, to say that the world is created is to emphasize, first of all, its radical contingency, and precisely — contingency in the order of existence. In other words, a created world is a world which might not have existed at all. That is to say that the world is, utterly and entirely, ab alio, and in no sense a se." As Gilson puts it, "there are some beings that are radically different from God at least in this that, unlike Him, they might not have existed, and still may, at a certain time, cease to exist." "May cease," however, does not mean necessarily "will [actually] cease." St. Justin was not a "conditionalist," and his name has been invoked by the defenders of a "conditional immortality" quite in vain. "I do not say, indeed, that all souls die." The whole argument was polemical, and its purpose was to stress belief in Creation. We find the same reasoning in other writings of the second century. St. Theophilus of Antioch insisted on the "neutral" character of Man. "By nature," Man is neither "immortal" nor "mortal," but rather "capable of both," dektikon amfoteron. "For if God had made him immortal from the beginning, He would have made him God." If Man from the beginning had chosen things immortal, in obedience to God's commandments, he would have been rewarded with immortality and have become God, "an adoptive God," deus assumptus, Theos anadihthis (Ad Autolycum II, 24 and 27).

Tatian went even further. "The soul is not in itself immortal, O Greeks, but mortal. Yet it is possible for it not to die" (Oratio ad Graecos, 13). The thought of the early Apologists was not free from contradictions, nor was it always accurately expressed. But the main contention was always clear: the problem of human immortality had to be faced in the context of the doctrine of Creation. One may say also: not as a metaphysical problem only, but as a religious one, first of all. "Immortality" is not an attribute of the soul, but something that ultimately depends upon man's actual relationship with God, his Master and Creator. Not only the ultimate destiny of Man can be achieved only in Communion with God, but even Man's existence itself and his "survival" or endurance depend upon God's will. St. Irenaeus continued the same tradition. In his struggle against the Gnostics he had a special motive to emphasize the creaturely character of the soul. It does not come from "another world," exempt from corruption; it belongs precisely to this created world.

It has been contended, says St. Irenaeus, that in order to stay in existence souls had to be "unbegotten" (sed oportere eas aut innascibiles esse ut sint immortales), for otherwise they would have to die with the body (vel si generationis initium acceperint, cum corpore mori). He declines this argument. As creatures, the souls "endure as long as God wills them to endure" (perseverant autem quoadusque eas Deus et esse, et perseverare voluerit). Perseverantia here obviously corresponds to the Greek: diamoni. St. Irenaeus uses almost the same phrases as St. Justin. The soul is not life by itself; it partakes of life, by the grant of God (sic et anima quidem non est vita, participatur autem a Deo sibi praestitam vitam). God alone is Life and the only Giver of Life (Adversus haereses II, 34.). Even Clement of Alexandria, in spite of his Platonism, would occasionally recall that the soul was not immortal "by nature" (Adumbrationes in I Petri 1:9: hinc apparet quoniam non est naturaliter anima incorruptibilis, sed gartia Dei ... perficitur incorruptibilis).

St. Athanasius would demonstrate the immortality of the soul by arguments which can be traced back to Plato (Adv. Gentes, 33), and yet he insisted very strongly that everything created is "by nature" unstable and exposed to destruction (ibidem, 41; fysin revstin usan ke dialyomeni). Even St. Augustine was aware of the necessity to qualify the immortality of the soul: Anima hominis immortalis est secundum quendam modum suum; non enim omni modo sicut Deus (Epist. VFF, ad Hieronymum). "According to the mutability of this life, it may be said to be mortal." (In Jo., tr. 23, 9; cf. De Trinitate, 19.15, and De Civ. Dei, 19.3: mortalis in quantum mutabilis). St. John of Damascus says that even Angels are immortal not by nature, but only by grace (De fide orth. II, 3; u fysi alla hariti), and proves it more or less in the same way as the Apologists (Dial. c. Manich., 21). We find the same emphatic statement in the "synodical" letter of St. Sophronius, the Patriarch of Jerusalem (634), which was read and favorably received at the Sixth Ecumenical Council (681). In the latter part of his letter Sophronius condemns the errors of the Origenists, the pre-existence of the soul and apokatastasis, and states plainly that "intellectual beings" (ta noita), though they do not die (thniski de udemos), nevertheless "are not immortal by nature," but only by the grace of God (Mansi, XI, 490-492; Migne, 87.3, 3181). It may be added that even in the 17th century this early tradition was not forgotten in the East, and we have an interesting contemporary record of a dispute between two Greek bishops of Crete exactly on this question: whether the soul was immortal "by nature" or "by grace."

We may conclude: When we discuss the problem of Immortality from a Christian point of view, we must keep in mind the creaturely nature of the soul. The very existence of the soul is contingent, i.e., as it were, "conditional." It is conditioned by the creative fiat of God. Yet, a given existence, i.e., an existence which is not necessarily implied in the "essence," is not necessarily a transient one. The creative fiat is a free but ultimate act of God. God has created the world simply for existence: ektise gar is to ine ta panda (Wis. 1: 14). There is no provision for revoking this creative decree. The sting of the antinomy is exactly here: the world has a contingent beginning, yet no end. It stands by the immutable will of God.

- Archpriest George Florovsky

Modern day persecution of the Orthodox Church

LOS ANGELES – The government of Eritrea wrested financial and personnel control away from the Eritrean Orthodox Church last week, the day after security police jailed nine staff of a Christian aid agency.

In an ultimatum delivered to the church’s Asmara headquarters on December 5, the state demanded that all offerings and tithes collected through the Orthodox Church be deposited directly into a government account.

According to the unilateral order, effective immediately the monthly salaries of all Orthodox priests are to be paid out from this government-controlled fund of church income.

In a related policy, the government also announced new limits for the number of priests to be allowed to serve in each parish throughout the country.

The order specified that any “extra” priests beyond this quota who are now serving in any given parish would be required to report to the Wi’a Military Training Center, to perform their required military service.

The leadership of the Eritrean Orthodox Church has reportedly accepted the government demands, forwarding formal notice of the new regulations to every Orthodox parish in the country.

Ignoring church canons, the regime of President Isaias Afwerki removed the church’s ordained Patriarch Abune Antonios from office in August 2005 and placed him under house arrest. After installing a lay administrator, the government then put forward Abune Dioscoros as Antonios’ unofficial successor.

The Catholic Church of Eritrea reportedly continues to reject government demands to curtail their staff of priests or send them to military service.

Read the rest here...

Orthodoxy and Women's Ordination

Controversy over the ordination of woman has plagued many denominations, but it hasn’t raised similar furor in the Orthodox Church. This is thanks to our way of approaching such issues: if the early church kept unbroken consensus on a matter, we will continue it. Consensus is not obvious in every issue, but it is here. For 20 centuries stretching backward, there have been no women priests.

There were plenty of women preachers, however. I’ve preached at worship services in Orthodox churches, myself.

We have some semantic confusion here, because many things Protestants consider restricted to clergy are done by Orthodox laity. We have women saints who were missionary evangelists, church-planters, teachers, healers, preachers, apologists, spiritual mothers, counselors, miracle-workers, martyrs, iconographers, hymnographers, and theologians. Holy women do virtually everything men do, except stand at the altar. That leaves them rest of the world, which is where most of God’s work gets done.

St. Theodora the Empress exercised authority over both men and women, and brought a triumphant end to the destruction of icons. St. Nina, a 14-year-old slave, evangelized the entire nation of Georgia. St. Mary Magdalene, St. Helen, and others are called “Equal to the Apostles.” St. Catherine and St. Perpetua were brilliant debaters. So I don’t mind if Protestant denominations want to ordain women. Many times, this just means allowing them to do things Orthodox women have always done.

But even if we know our Church’s destination on this question, we still don’t know how they got there. Strangely enough, in the writings of the early church the question never comes up. It seems it just was never controversial. Throughout the ages, Orthodox women and men found the all-male priesthood a satisfactory, maybe even a positive, thing. How can we see what they saw?

I don’t think we’ll get much help from the usual arguments. Opponents of women’s ordination often start by citing St. Paul’s requirement that women be submissive and silent in church (I Tim 2:11-15 and I Cor 14:34-35). Yet this can’t mean utter silence, because Paul honors many women in active ministry, like the deaconess Phoebe (Romans 16:1), and he hails Euodia, Synteche (I Cor 4:2-3) and Prisca (Rom 16:3) as synergoi (fellow-workers) in the gospel. Vocal prophetesses span the bible, from Moses’ sister Miriam (Ex 15:20) to the four daughters of St. Philip (Acts 21:9). The prophetess Anna spoke out in the temple, telling everyone about the child Christ (Lk 2:36-38).

When read in context, it sounds like St. Paul is concerned about disorder in worship. In I Timothy, he admonishes men to pray “without anger or quarrelling” and tells women to be “in hesychia,” a state of prayerful stillness. In I Corinthians, Paul says it is “disgraceful” when women talk in church, and equally “disgraceful” when they pray without wearing a veil. Yet few who stand on the former text insist that women wear veils in church.

Here’s another argument: a priest must be male because he represents Christ. When I was attending a mainline seminary and aiming toward ordination myself, I would say, sure, Christ was male, and he was also Jewish, and a certain height and hair color. Why is only his maleness indispensable? Surely the fact that he was Jewish is even more significant, but we don’t exclude from ordination people who don’t have Jewish genes.

We don’t find this argument used in the early church; in fact, early Christians reflected very little on why Christ was male. Instead, they emphasized the fact that he was human. As Bp. Kallistos Ware points out, Christ’s maleness isn’t even mentioned in the hymns appointed for the Feast of the Circumcision, which would seem the likeliest spot. There might be good practical and theological reasons why Jesus was born male, but the early church did not explore them.

Another familiar line goes, “But we’re not putting women down. Women and men are equal. They just have different roles.” Okay, but this still doesn’t answer the question. Sure, every person has a unique calling, and every role is “different” from every other. What is it about the priesthood that requires maleness?

In 1988 an Orthodox consultation met in Rhodes and considered some aspects of women’s ministries. They recommended resuming the lapsed practice of ordaining women deacons, and they suggested that in the all-male priesthood there was a correspondence between the priest and Christ, and between the Virgin Mary Theotokos and the Church.

But they were reluctant to explain too much: “We are in a sphere of profound, almost indescribable experience of the inner ethos of the world-saving and cosmic dimensions of Christian truth.”

Not everyone is satisfied with ineffability. When you wonder why there’s this pattern of all-male ordination, some people have a ready answer: it’s because the early Christians were dumb. We know better now. Somehow the concept of evolution leaks over from biology to theology, and it’s presumed that our generation is what the Holy Spirit was aiming at when he came out with flawed prototypes like St. Macrina and St. John Chrysostom.

I suspect the reverse is true, and that we’re blind to some spiritual realities that were obvious to earlier Christians. Take the value of male and female virginity, for example. I once spent a year reading intensively about saints, and at the end I was convinced that earlier generations knew something we don’t. They knew that virginity is a source of great spiritual power.

(Christianity isn’t alone in valuing virginity; other great world religions also consecrate male and female monastics. I like the line in the film “Keeping the Faith” where, after a series of nosy questions about celibacy, a Catholic priest mutters, “They sure don’t ask the Dalai Lama those questions.”)

When it comes to understanding the power of virginity or gender differences or anything else related to sex, there’s a good chance we just won’t get it. We live under the bombardment of continual targeted, intoxicating messages about sex, which present it in a radically anti-wholistic way, as if it’s something that happens to an empty body. Consumer-culture sex is an isolated mechanical act with no relation to a person’s past, future, emotions, relationships, or health. But in reality, sex always occurs in a complete embodied life, one humming with ceaseless spiritual and emotional activity. In this windstorm of messages, two significant truths are being suppressed: that the underlying urge is still to reproduce; and that sex requires a lot of vulnerability, so the most desired quality in a partner is trust.

Since we can’t understand sex in the instinctive, body-deep ways our ancestors did, it’s natural that we won’t understand sex differences. We don’t see any more how savory and good these differences are. While you could sort humans in many ways–by height or shoe size or age–the all-time favorite is by sex. We just get a kick out of gender differences, even though most of the human body plan is shared by men and women alike. It’s the distinctives that we highlight: women’s clothes suggest an hourglass figure no matter what shape the lady inside, while men’s jackets are enhanced by brawny padded shoulders. After a birth the first thing we want to know is “Boy or girl?,” and lumpy, indistinguishable newborns are stuffed into baseball costumes or palest pink. We pass along gender-based jokes, because clumsy stereotypes point toward something that fascinates and delights us. The difference between the sexes is the most cheerful and exhilarating thing we know: it’s where babies come from. The difference between the sexes is how we partner with God in the creation of life.

If we can’t understand the difference between male and female, we sure can’t understand what previous generations knew about the value of an all-male priesthood. I can only hope that some future generation will regain the peace and clarity we’ve lost, and be able once again recognize and enunciate this mystery.

- Frederica Mathewes-Green
Originally posted on Belief Net and reposted with permission.

Brief hiatus

I will be out of town this weekend and thus expect no new posts before Monday barring something really important happening. I will however have access to the internet so I will be checking comments etc. For those celebrating the Feast of the Nativity this Sunday on the old calendar may you have a blessed and joyous Christmas.

Christ is born!
Glorify Him!

Some thoughts on the death penalty

In recent days the death penalty has been brought back into the news through a series of events both here and abroad. Most prominently in Iraq Saddam Hussein was hanged for crimes against humanity. Here in the United States both California and Florida have suspended executions following botched lethal injections and scandalous stories in the press. New York last year effectively abolished the death penalty after ten years and over a hundred million dollars spent in capital prosecutions without a single execution. The state’s highest court invalidated a part of the death penalty law and the state legislature decided it was not worth trying to reinstate it. And just this week New Jersey’s bi-partisan commission on capital punishment returned an almost unanimous (with one dissent) recommendation to the state legislature that NJ abolish the death penalty. There are nine people on death row there and no one has been electrocuted since 1963 in the garden state.

Over at Sacramentum Vitae Mike Liccione has posted an article on the death penalty that is definitely worth reading. I still think that Avery Cardinal Dulles wrote the best short essay on the DP from a Catholic point of view though. The lead comment on Mike's article posted by Deacon Bresnahan asks how many guards have been killed by lifers over the years, this being the crux of his argument in favor of capital punishment. In our Hollywood oriented society it’s easy to confuse movies for reality. But in reality that sort of thing is unbelievably rare.

In answer to his query I can state that homicide in general has one of the lowest rates of recidivism of any crime. And although the rare exceptions always make for sensational (and tragic) headlines, the fact is that intentional murder by life sentenced inmates is so rare that its frequency of occurrence is statistically insignificant. For those inmates who are determined to be a threat there are places they can be kept with relative safety. So called super max prisons are the best option for dealing with the violent inmate.

My own feeling on this subject have evolved in recent years. Up until probably about five years ago I was a strong supporter of capital punishment. However the more I have read on the subject the less I like it. Today I am generally opposed to capital punishment in this country for the following reasons…

1. It has no deterrent value. This has been unanimously established by so many exhaustive studies that I feel safe in stating it is not a matter of opinion but rather of fact. I am not aware of a single serious study which has produced any credible evidence supporting a deterrent effect for executions.

2. The danger of miscarriage of justice has been established in recent years to be so great that in all but those very rare cases where there is absolutely zero doubt of guilt, the use of the DP is too risky.

3.. What passes for due process in those states which regularly carry out executions is extremely questionable with few or no standards for competent criminal defense and appellate rights. By contrast in those states where strict standards exist for competent legal council and effective appellant review few or no executions have occurred.

4. It has also been shown repeatedly that there is a direct relationship between the race, class and resources of defendants and the likelihood of facing a death sentence. The electric chair should not be reserved for those who can’t afford the best lawyers or who were not fortunate in choosing their parents or ethnicity.

5. The cost of capital punishment vastly exceeds the cost of incarceration for life. This can not be altered without reducing access to the appellate system which further increases the already unacceptable likelihood of a miscarriage of justice.

6. Adjudication of capital cases has been tying our legal and court system in knots for far too long. Even in those states where executions are common it is rare for an inmate to be killed in less then five years from the date of his sentence, and it is not uncommon for these cases to drag on for decades.

7. In this country the availability of life without parole (LWOP) and super maximum security facilities renders the death penalty unnecessary as a means for neutralizing dangerous offenders.

8. Although one may not dismiss the need for just punishment as one of the moral ends of the legal system it can not outweigh the preceding factors. Retributive justice by itself can not justify endangering innocent lives or the tremendous cost to society both in its moral values and also its public treasure by attempting to sustain this system solely for the benefit of exacting “proportionate justice.”

Given the aforementioned points, I think that it is time to relegate the death penalty to the history books and move forward with more enlightened and effective sanctions for offenders. In some countries there may not yet exist the conditions that permit the safe and long term incarceration of dangerous criminals. In those situations capital punishment may still be a rare necessity. However, here that is no longer the case. Although I am not aware of Orthodoxy having ever spoken on the matter with one voice, I feel comfortable in saying that there seems to be a broad consensus in the Church today that the death penalty is generally not compatible with Christian ethics. Although the Roman Catholic Church has dissected the issue with its customary precise and legal approach, its view is essentially the same as that of most Orthodox including myself. The basic thrust is this. Deliberate killing is not moral except (possibly) in those rare cases of self defense where lesser means are not available to end the threat. This is not the case in the United States and thus the death penalty is no longer moral.

Fr. Stephen reflects on living in difficult times...

This essay is really must reading. I strongly encourage everyone to go check it out.

HAPPY NEW YEAR!

Wishing all a joyous and healthy new year...

The Dissing of an ex-President

Gerald Ford arrived in Washington yesterday for the last time. Amid all of the pomp and pageantry (toned down a bit at Ford’s request) some things made an impression. It was moving to see the flag draped coffin carried by the military honor guard while cannons boomed in salute, and the band played Hail to the Chief. But other things stood out too. Like the mourners on hand. The Vice President was at Andrews Air Force Base to lead the delegation. The outgoing speaker of the House and Majority Leader of the Senate were on hand when the body arrived at the Capital Building to lie in state. But the gaps were shocking.

The incoming Speaker and Majority Leader were absent, as also most of the cabinet, the Supreme Court and almost 500 (of 535) members of Congress from both parties! But probably the most glaring absence was the current President of the United States, George W. Bush. Mr. Bush did not attend the arrival ceremonies for former President Reagan’s body either, although then he had an excuse. He was hosting the G-8 summit. This time it appears he just could not be bothered to interrupt his vacation. As a matter of protocol last night’s ceremony in the Capital Building was the actual “State Funeral.” The funeral on Tuesday morning is the religious service. There were so many absentees from the State Funeral in the capital rotunda that congressional staffers had to be rounded up to fill all the seats left vacant by their bosses. That this many important people would fail to show a modicum of respect for the passing of a head of state is a sad reflection on how bad things are in Washington.

Politics aside Gerald Ford was an incredibly descent man who had very few true enemies (if any). When he was told about Nixon’s famous “enemies list” Ford responded rather acidly that anyone who can not keep a list of his enemies in his head has too many. Other than his pardon of President Nixon for which history has almost unanimously vindicated him, he was as close to a non-controversial president as we have had since Eisenhower. He was a staunch Republican, but not a partisan one. He was conservative in finances, crime and foreign policy, while being moderate on social policy. He enjoyed remarkably cordial relations with just about everyone from both parties during his presidency. And he restored honor and trust to the office, after it was so badly tarnished by his predecessor. Yet, all of this seems to have counted for naught in today’s Washington. Jerry (and Betty) Ford deserved better than this.

(Side Note: I want to say a quick thank you to the people at St. Athanasius Church in Sacramento for their warm welcome to a visitor this morning. I hope to be able to attend again the next time I am in Sacramento over a weekend.)

Feast of the Holy Innocents

Today is the commemoration of the 14000 infants and small children massacred by King Herod's soldiers. They were killed in an effort to murder Jesus Christ whose birth the Holy Magi had announced to Herod. This is also a feast on which I feel a strong sense of empathy for those in our society who are the victims violence, abuse, or neglect and who are the most defenseless, namely children. I particularly would call to mind the victims of abortion and infanticide so common in our world. But children are also victims in so many other ways. Some are impressed into service as soldiers in bloody civil wars, others are kidnapped and sold into sexual slavery. How many go to bed hungry every night in all corners of the world? This is a day on which Christians should resolve to do all in our power to protect children from the horrors of the modern world.

Is the end near?

Two legal dramas appear to be winding their way towards a conclusion. The first is the trial of Iraqi dictator and tyrant Saddam Hussein. The genocidal monster who once kept a bust of Joseph Stalin on his desk and was said to be a student of his method of governance was convicted and sentenced to death in early November. His case has since been appealed to a special court with power to review all capitol sentences. A couple days go that court affirmed the death sentence and ordered it carried out within thirty days. Reports now coming out of Iraq strongly suggest that Hussein may be hanged before the new year.

For the record I am not a fan of capitol punishment. It's something which I think we as a country could live without. However we have never had to deal with anyone in Saddam's class of criminality before either. This is a man whose crimes put him in a league quite apart from even your more oppressive dictators. To say that he was an evil tyrant would be a gross understatement. In this case I think his execution may be necessary for the welfare of Iraqi society and also to once and for all crush any hopes on the part of Baathists for some sort of restoration. There can be no serious doubt except on the part of moral abolitionists that Saddam deserves the gallows. Though I will not celebrate any hanging, neither in this case will I shed tears. Rather I will commend his soul to the mercy of God.

The second drama is in Durham North Carolina. The ongoing railroading of three Duke University lacrosse players appears to be falling apart. Last week District Attorney Mike Nifong was forced to drop rape charges after the alleged victim changed her story yet again. However his evidence has not increased. The remaining charges are still based almost exclusively on the word of the alleged victim whose testimony is likely to be subject to a crushing cross examination if she ever takes the stand. Then there is the issue of a highly improper identification by photo lineup that violates all manner of police procedures and is likely to be suppressed. If that goes she will likely be barred from identifying any of the defendants in court. The next item is DA Nifong's attempt to withhold exculpatory evidence from the defense. This is such an egregious matter that the judge could impose sanctions on the DA and maybe even dismiss the case out of hand at a hearing scheduled for February.

However it might not make it to February. The North Carolina State Bar Association has now entered the fray by opening an investigation into Nifong for professional misconduct. My guess is that this is just the opening salvo of what could become a serious probe into his conduct of this case. There are serious hints that the Feds are looking at a civil rights investigation of the prosecution. Given these developments its very possible Nifong may be forced to recuse himself from the case due to an obvious conflict of interest. I can not imagine anyone else going forward with a case that is taking on water faster than the Titanic. My best guess is that this case will be dropped before the scheduled hearing in February.

However that is not likely to be the end of this matter. I suspect (and hope) that the three defendants will pursue whatever remedies they have in civil court for the injury they have suffered from this out of control DA.

Prayers requested

Dear all,

The mother of my brother in law, a very dear woman is gravely ill and believed to be near death. Mary Ann Young suffered a massive heart attack on Christmas eve while preparing dinner for the family. She nearly died then but the EMS people were able to revive her. Since then she has been in critical condition with virtually no sign of brain activity. The family has made the extremely difficult decision to end the extraordinary medical treatment which has been keeping her physically alive. The ventilator has been removed and a Do Not Resuscitate order has been signed. She received Holy Unction according to the rites of the Roman Catholic Church to which she belonged. Your prayers are coveted and deeply appreciated in this difficult time.

Under the mercy,

John

Memory Eternal

Gerald R. Ford
1913-2006

Christ is born!

Wishing each of you a joyous Feast of the Nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ...
Merry Christmas to all !!!

Some pre-Christmas odds and ends

The rape charges against the three Duke lacrosse players were dropped yesterday after the alleged victim changed her story (again). You can read the details here. On a side note this article places a degree of emphasis on the criticism Mike Nifong is getting, that is unusual for the mainstream media. The New York Times was among the convict them first and try them later crowd when this story originally broke. This whole case is finally starting to die the death it should have experienced about six months ago.

(Late night update: The NY Times has posted another article with a devastating review of the DA's case. Read it here)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There will be a two day Colloquium for Anglicans on Orthodoxy hosted by St. Andrews House in Detroit Michigan. The list of speakers is pretty impressive. Among the notables are two of my favorite Orthodox former Anglicans, Frederica Mathewes-Green and Fr. Stephen Freeman. The preceding link will take you to the article with all of the information.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am honored, deeply honored to have been named Time Magazine’s man of the year. However, at the risk of sounding ungrateful I think the honor would have meant more if it did not involve sharing it with several hundred million other people. Not only am obliged to share the distinction with others, but I am also required to share it with some people that I confess to no strong affinity for. The idea of sharing the acceptance speech with Fr. Jake was almost enough to make me send a polite note to Time’s editors declining their award. But then I was afraid that they would have chosen someone like Iranian strongman Ahmadinejad, or worse they would have just let Fr. Jake keep it for himself.

On which note, I will close with a rather revealing quote from a recent article over at Fr. Jakes site. When commenting on why the bishop elect of South Carolina (a conservative by Episcopalian standards) should not be given consent as opposed to V. Gene Robinson who was the author says…

We consider the consent question to be an ecclesiological, not a theological, question. Neither Father Lawrence’s nor Canon Robinson’s theology is relevant to the consent process.

Translation: Heresy should not be an impediment to being elected a bishop in TEC. Refusal to hang out with heretics should be.

Yes Virginia, there are nut cases...

(Anti)Pope Pius XIII

Michael Liccione has posted a good essay on those who subscribe to the hermeneutic of rupture regarding Vatican II. I strongly agree with Mike's position on this. I am also saying this as one who has been sharply critical of the fruits of Vatican II and who was briefly affiliated with the SSPX (mea culpa mea culpa...) a number of years ago on my journey to Orthodoxy. It seems like lately that the trads have been coming out of the woodwork. I suspect it has something to do with the much anticipated indult that is expected to grant very broad freedom for Roman Catholic clergy to use the pre-Vatican II rite of the mass. Traditionalists in the Roman Church probably can be divided into two or three groups.

Moderate Traditionalists: Those who have a pronounced preference for the classical Roman Rite (Tridentine) and who to varying degrees are not happy with the results of Vatican II, but who nonetheless remain in full communion with Rome and who accept as both valid and licit (if perhaps distasteful) the various post conciliar reforms. There's no law that says Roman Catholics have to agree with everything the Pope says or does in matters pertaining to church discipline.

Schismatic Traditionalists: These come in all kinds of flavors, the largest being the Society of St. Pius X. They are people who have to varying degrees set themselves up in judgment over the Pope and their bishops and concluded that they need to do their own thing until Rome realizes how wrong it has been, and restores the church to the way things were no later than the reign of Pius XII. They believe (and have a strong argument from a purely legalistic position) that the Rite of Pius V was never lawfully abrogated or suppressed. Unfortunately they therefor claim that their priests (they range from organized groups like the SSPX to individual vegantes) can licitly and validly offer mass and the other sacraments the old way independent of the local bishop or the Pope. The SSPX has advanced the argument of extraordinary necessity as a justification for their actions. These traditionalists are not in communion with or submission to the Pope or local bishops although most recognize the Pope as such and profess their loyalty to him, but only on matters where they believe the Pope remains orthodox (small "o"). These traditionalists also tend to buy into many of the conspiracy theories that right wing sects like to promote and are often moderately to extremely anti-semitic.

Radical Traditionalists: Or as I like to call them, the tin foil hat crowd. These are you certifiable nut cases. They are almost always sede vecantists and many adhere to one or another of the various anti-popes now floating around. They regard Vatican II as heretical and generally deny the validity of the sacraments including Holy Orders using the reformed rites. Thus they sneeringly refer to Pope Benedict XVI as Fr. Ratzinger. They are often rabid anti-semites and expound to anyone they can make listen to their dark fantasies that Vatican II was a masonic plot hatched by the secret Free Mason John XXIII who was never really elected Pope by the way. I could go on but I am sure you get the point.

Also many Schismatic and Radical Traditionalists are active supporters of far right political movements. This includes support or veneration of various right wing dictators (Franco and Pinochet come to mind). Archbishop Lefebvre (founder of the SSPX) was a staunch monarchist.

Lest anyone think I am beating up on the Catholics let me assure you that we Orthodox have our share of wing nuts as well. Radical Old Calendarists although small in numbers are extremely noisy. Just in the last few days monks from the Esphigmenou monastery on Mt. Athos were involved in a violent clash with another group of monks trying to drive them out of the historic monastery where they have been holed up. They reject the usual things that radical fringe groups get bent over... Ecumenism especially with Roman Catholics, the reformed calendar (a crypto papist / masonic conspiracy to destroy the Orthodox Church) and all the other clap trap. They have been refusing to commemorate the Ecumenical Patriarch for some time and are now in open revolt against the authority of the church. Of course they are right and everyone else is wrong. Sigh. Most radical Old Calendarists share many of the characteristics of the more extreme Roman Catholic traditionalists in their bigotry and affinity for right wing politics and xenophobia.

One comment posted over at Free Republic summed them up rather nicely. He referred to them as Orthodoxy's equivalent to sede vecantists.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P.S. Some Orthodox think there is a strong affinity among Roman Catholic Traditionalists for us. With the likely exception of the moderate trads they are mistaken. The more extreme ones admire Orthodoxy because our liturgy is so old and largely unchanged. But their respect stops there. They have no further use for Orthodoxy until we kneel and kiss the Pope's ring.

Speech to the electors of Bristol

I am sorry I cannot conclude without saying a word on a topic touched upon by my worthy colleague. I wish that topic had been passed by at a time when I have so little leisure to discuss it. But since he has thought proper to throw it out, I owe you a clear explanation of my poor sentiments on that subject.

He tells you that "the topic of instructions has occasioned much altercation and uneasiness in this city;" and he expresses himself (if I understand him rightly) in favour of the coercive authority of such instructions.

Certainly, gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiassed opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.

My worthy colleague says, his will ought to be subservient to yours. If that be all, the thing is innocent. If government were a matter of will upon any side, yours, without question, ought to be superior. But government and legislation are matters of reason and judgment, and not of inclination; and what sort of reason is that, in which the determination precedes the discussion; in which one set of men deliberate, and another decide; and where those who form the conclusion are perhaps three hundred miles distant from those who hear the arguments?

To deliver an opinion, is the right of all men; that of constituents is a weighty and respectable opinion, which a representative ought always to rejoice to hear; and which he ought always most seriously to consider. But authoritative instructions; mandates issued, which the member is bound blindly and implicitly to obey, to vote, and to argue for, though contrary to the clearest conviction of his judgment and conscience,--these are things utterly unknown to the laws of this land, and which arise from a fundamental mistake of the whole order and tenor of our constitution.

Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests; which interests each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates; but parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where, not local purposes, not local prejudices, ought to guide, but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole. You choose a member indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not member of Bristol, but he is a member of parliament. If the local constituent should have an interest, or should form an hasty opinion, evidently opposite to the real good of the rest of the community, the member for that place ought to be as far, as any other, from any endeavour to give it effect. I beg pardon for saying so much on this subject. I have been unwillingly drawn into it; but I shall ever use a respectful frankness of communication with you. Your faithful friend, your devoted servant, I shall be to the end of my life: a flatterer you do not wish for.

- Edmund Burke November 3rd 1774

Five Favorite Philosophers

The pontificator has posted his list of favorite philosophers and invited others to contribute their own selection. I don't have a ranked list but I will put up the names of five whom I hold in pretty high regard.

1. St. Seraphim of Sarov

2. St. Maximos the Confessor

3. St. Gregory Palamas

4. St. Ephraim the Syrian (not sure if he qualifies for philosophy but I am listing him anyway)

5. Edmund Burke (father of modern conservatism)

Will it ever end?

The travesty of justice in Durham North Carolina continues to move along. Although most of the legal community appears long since to have concluded that the rape charges against three Duke University lacrosse players are unsustainable District Attorney Mike Nifong refuses to drop the indictment. This last week we got wind of the latest nail in already firmly sealed coffin. The defense discovered that Nifong's office deliberately withheld from the defense details of DNA tests done on the alleged victim and her clothes. The defense was originally told that there was no DNA match to any of the defendants. True enough as far as that goes. But what was withheld from them was that DNA from multiple other males WAS found! This is such an egregious violation of the basic rules of discovery that it should be considered prosecutorial misconduct.

However there is hope. The defense has filed motions to suppress the lineup ID that was made by the alleged victim. As I noted in an earlier post, she was only shown photos of members of the team. We now know that the entire process by which the ID took place was a travesty. If the lineup is suppressed she will most likely be barred from making any ID in court. And since at this point the only real evidence the DA has is the word of a highly impeachable witness, if her ID goes that should (in a sane world) put an end to this legal circus. Unfortunately we have already seen that sanity appears to be in short supply in the DA's office in Durham NC.

On a side note Fox News has posted an op-ed piece by Susan Estrich a professor of law at USC. I recommend it for anyone interested.

Previous posts on the Duke case...

A very ugly word

The man in the background

Its Over Already

Et Tu Times?

Latest From Duke University

Showing a little respect...

File this under whine of the week.

While perusing CNN for news tonight I stumbled on the above photo of the prime minister and defense minister of Japan taken just this last October at some sort of Navy review and I was jarred. They are clearly wearing formal morning coats and holding TOP HATS! I remember in 1996 when then president Bill Clinton was taking the oath of office at his second inaugural ceremony and seeing someone sitting several rows back from him wearing jeans. Setting aside for the moment my visceral distaste for all things Clinton I thought that was the height of bad form. I don't care who you are or what you think of the sitting president. You DO NOT show up at a state ceremony dressed like you were on your way to the ballgame and stopped off as an afterthought.

Speaking of presidential inaugurations when was the last time anyone dressed formally for one? My memory may have faded a bit but I think Reagan wore a morning coat to his first swearing in. Jack Kennedy was famously the last president to wear that traditional symbol of high formality, the top hat. Toppers however are still de rigueur at many functions outside of this country (see the photo above).

Whatever happened to respect and etiquette in this country? How far have we sunk as a society? I go to weddings and see people dressed in jeans and flannel shirts. When was the last time many of us were bothered to put on a coat and tie when going to a nice restaurant? Not long ago I had to explain to a good friend of mine who was getting married in the morning (after his fiancé made it clear he was not going to be allowed to just wear a coat and tie) that you don’t wear a tuxedo before six.

Has anyone been to a shopping mall lately and not seen young men walking around wearing pajamas or with their jeans hanging down around their knees? Some years back when I was in traffic court a young man who could not have had his license for long gave the judge a particularly sharp look when he was told to take his baseball cap off in court. I waited in vain for the judge to fine him for contempt of court. This trend towards casual to the point of slovenly dress seems to have even made its way into some of our churches. And lest we say this is just a universal trend favoring the complete abandonment of any semblance of manners and polite behavior, I can assure the reader that people outside the United States do in fact know that you don’t wear evening dress for an 11 AM wedding!

Sorry, but this breakdown in social graces is I think a very distinctly American phenomena. I guess I am just wondering when we became too lazy or embarrassed in this country to show a little class in our dress.

Let the healing begin...

I have deliberately refrained from commenting (with one notable exception) on what Fr. Huneycutt once referred to as the elephant in the living room mostly because there has been very little real news. I am of course talking about L'affaire OCA, i.e. the financial scandal in the Orthodox Church in America. (In the interest of full disclosure, yes I am under the OCA.) In my last and only real comment on the situation I stated that I was cautiously optimistic about the outcome of the whole matter. It appeared at the time that the church was taking affirmative steps to come to grips with the problems and to address them in a constructive manner. There has of course been a lot of babble (and no small amount of malicious gossip) on this subject all over the Orthodox corner of the internet.

Today I can report that I remain cautiously optimistic. This is based on the first real news in a number of months. The OCA posted a statement regarding an extraordinary joint meeting of the Metropolitan Council and the Holy Synod. There preliminary reports were finally read to all concerned with the gist being posted in the above link.

So for those who don't like to follow links all over what does the report say in a nutshell? Essentially that yes, there are some serious problems. Money is missing. Money has been misused. Money was improperly transferred and records from the period in question are at best incomplete, in many cases missing and at least in some cases appear to have been falsified. And of course I am talking about the church's money. The report also indicated that most of these issues are apparently linked to a single person. The matter has been referred to the Holy Synod for possible disciplinary action against the alleged offender. That person was not identified however.

Yes I do have some strong suspicions on who this person may be but I am not going to speculate on that here. Frankly I think it would be inappropriate to do so absent hard evidence. I will however permit myself the following observation. If the alleged offender were not a hierarch there would be no need to refer the matter to the Holy Synod for disciplinary action since all other persons, both lay and clergy, are subject to the authority of a specific bishop. And any Orthodox bishop can impose any discipline he deems appropriate on those under his authority. My guess is that now that the OCA has come right out and posted in plain language what amounts to an itemized list of ethical lapses, this will be dealt with expeditiously. There will not be any desire to drag this out.

So where does this leave the church? In my opinion the church is left healthier (if somewhat poorer). We have been confronted by a serious scandal and the church seems to have taken what I regard at this point as the decisive decision to be totally honest and upfront in dealing with it. This was not the smoothest process and there were times when it was not clear that the church was going to deal with this in an open manner. But whatever bumps there may have been on the road, it seems to have worked thus far. I felt good when the church decided to bring in outside auditors and a highly reputable law firm to jointly conduct a totally independent investigation of the serious allegations that had been flying all over the place. The decision to post the blunt and ugly findings of this investigation on its website is the strongest evidence yet that the OCA's leadership has resolved to clean house and make sure this does not happen again. While I am hardly elated, I feel strongly that this is the best news to come out of the church's central administration in a long time.

Where do we go from here? For the most part it seems the OCA has got the basic lessons down. There needs to be much stricter accountability for money on the part of those who have their fingers on it. Comprehensive rules need to be put in place with independent verification of adherence to these rules by an outside source. Any person or persons directly involved in this scandal need to be removed from any position of trust or responsibility in the church. The Holy Synod can weigh any additional sanctions deemed appropriate with regards the principal offender.

The final step of course is going to be the hardest. And that is that we need to let go of it. We as a church need to step out of the scandal oriented mindset that to some extent we have been in for a while. We need to stop looking for new scandals, and to stop gossiping about hierarchs. We need to obey the commandment to forgive those who have sinned against us and our trust. And we need to get back to the really important business at hand which is working out our salvation "in trembling and fear" as St. Paul tells us.

December 13 Feast of St. Herman of Alaska

Venerable Herman of Alaska, Wonderworker of All America. A spiritual mission was organized in 1793 with volunteers from the monks of the Valaam Monastery. They were sent to preach the Word of God to the native inhabitants of northwestern America, who had come under the sovereignty of Russia only ten years before. St Herman was one of the members of this mission.

St Herman came from a family of merchants of Serpukhov, a city of the Moscow diocese. His name before he was tonsured, and his family name are not known. There is a possibility, however, that his baptismal name was Gerasimus. He had a great zeal for piety from his youth, and he entered monastic life at sixteen. (This was in 1772, if we assume that Herman was born in 1756, although sometimes 1760 is given as the date of his birth.) First he entered the Trinity-Sergius Hermitage which was located near the Gulf of Finland on the Peterhof Road, about 15 versts (about 10 miles) from St Petersburg. He also spent time at at Sarov, where he first met Fr Nazarius, who became his Elder at Valaam. Later, St Herman followed him to Sanaxar where St Theodore (February 19) was their igumen.
Read the rest here.

ROCOR / MP communion update

The Russian news service TASS/ITAR reports that a formal signing ceremony will be held for the Act on Canonical Communion in Moscow probably in May 2007. They did not cite a specific source for this date although they made reference to the recent meeting of the Holy Synod of the Church Abroad in New York.

Will it be a Merry Christmas for Roman Catholic Traditionalists?

(Back at the keyboard after a very hectic week and largely recovered from a nasty cold/flue bug...)

An Italian news report posted over at NLM suggests that the publication of a long anticipated indult liberalizing the Rite of Pius V may be imminent. This would be good news for many Roman Catholics who are hoping that their principal Christmas present is coming from the Holy See. Unlike many reports which are often little more than anonymous gossip, this one has a pretty authoritative source cited.

The date that lives in infamy...

Before 9/11 there was another date Americans recalled for a treacherous surprise attack. Lest we forget...

Feast of St. Nicholas

Today is the feast of St. Nicholas . It is one of the most popular feast days on the Orthodox Church calendar and his name is among the most common in many Orthodox countries. There are many traditions associated with this saint which can be read about here . It is also a custom (imported from the west I believe) that on his feast day decorations for Christmas are usually put up. To all of the Nicks Nikkies Nikolaiis and Nicholes out there... many years!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Update: I just got an email which informs me that apparently a movie is now in the works about the real St. Nicholas. The link to the official web site of the film is here.

Feast of St Alexander Hotovitzky (New Martyr)

This saint was born in Russia and it was there that he would later be martyred by the Communists. But much of his priestly service was here in North America. Read his biography here.

There's diversity and then there's...

December 4, 2006 -- DiD you hear the one about the Marines that Columbia University invited to campus for Fleet Week?

Not any time in the last few decades, you didn't.

But you might have heard the one about the Marine who was told by a fellow Columbia student that he was stupid for joining the military because he's Hispanic and didn't realize he was being used for cannon fodder.

It's actually kind of funny - but when it happened to me during Columbia's Activities Day last year, I was fighting mad. Not because I was publicly humiliated in front of several hundred of my fellow classmates (any devil dog who has spent a summer on Parris Island gets used to insults), but because of what the incident showed about New York's most prestigious university.

On the surface, Columbia is all for diversity (good, very good) and completely opposed to intolerance (bad, really bad). On any given day, eager undergrads can speak out for Starbucks employees forced to make coffee with non-ergonomic espresso machines, or call for the school to install non-gender-specific bathrooms.

Read the rest here.

Some thoughts on the Pope,western phronema, & Orthodox Doctrinal Development

Ben of the Undercroft has posted an interesting essay on an often undiscussed aspect of the Rome Orthodox reunion debate. We Orthodox tend to spend a great deal of time discussing what changes the Latins will have to make for reunification to occur. But we frequently ignore the reality of the current situation in the West. And that reality is that the Roman Catholic Church has become to a certain degree dependent on a strong centralized administration for government. As I noted in a post on this subject a long time ago over in Free Republic; Rome having decided to ride the tiger may find it hard to dismount without injury.

The West largely lacks what we would call an Orthodox phronema. The Latin sensus fidei if you will has become severely eroded. The idea that Rome could just snap its fingers and become Orthodox in its ecclesiology is naive. The Roman Church has over the course of a thousand years become very dependent on the power of the papacy. Given the disciplinary and theological chaos now rampant in the Roman Catholic Church, a reasonable argument could be made that the Latin Church would suffer significant harm if it were not for a powerful papacy. Ben makes the point well in his essay.

I can think of several Roman bishops and at least one cardinal here in the United States who I strongly suspect would be ordaining women and marrying same gender couples the day after the Pope renounced his universal and absolute jurisdiction over the church. I can’t say that about any Orthodox hierarchs. Again this comes down to sensus fidei. When was the last time a Roman Catholic bishop called one of his brothers a heretic (excepting the schismatic Lefebvrists)? Has that happened in my lifetime? If so I am unaware of it. I think this is in part due to the subserveint role that Latin bishops have been relegated to in the Roman ecclesiology. This is alien to Orthodoxy. The faith in the Orthodox Church is not the property of just one supreme bishop. It is the property of The Church as a whole including even the laity. And in that context it has been jealously guarded for a thousand years.

I have occasionally asked Orthodoxy's critics for an explanation for its remarkable theological stability in various forums and discussions. Generally I don’t get much in the form of a response. Fr. Kimel (I am going to have get used to the new/old title) however gave a brief glimpse of his thinking on the subject in his comment on Ben’s article. He is rather dismissive of Orthodoxy’s lack of doctrinal development, attributing it to the historic conditions of the Orthodox Church under Ottoman and Communist oppression. This is in my opinion both an historically weak argument and also a double edged one that could cut the other way with equal force.

First the Orthodox world has never been completely under the heal of oppression. The (Eastern) Roman Empire lasted up until the XV century before its final collapse. And the Ottoman Empire had lost much of its grip on traditionally Orthodox lands by the end of the XIX century. It was not until 1918 that the Communists became a great power and threat to the Church. And while the injury done was great (we will never know the number of martyrs but certainly they are in the millions), the Communist yoke was from an historical point of view rather short lived. Other than that bloody space of roughly three quarters of a century the Russian Church was never directly repressed on a large scale.[1]

Depending on when you date Rome's departure an argument can be made that the Orthodox Church enjoyed at least moderate freedom for more than half of the period since the schism and in the case of Russia almost the entire post schism period less the heart of the XX century. Additionally, during this time there were some fairly long periods in certain locals where Ottoman rule was relatively tolerant of Christianity. Add to this the combination of a lack of central authority and the autonomous national churches and you have what should be a recipe for one schism after another.

And yet in the eight or so centuries since Rome’s departure there have been no significant schisms in the Orthodox Church over matters of faith. Nor has there been any major reinterpretation or “doctrinal development” of the faith. When one examines the totality of historical circumstances and also the ecclesiology of the Orthodox Church (which at a casual glance bears a frightening similarity to Anglicanism) the above statement becomes truly astonishing.

The inverse of Fr. Kimel’s argument of course is that one could look at a great deal of the development of Latin doctrine especially in relation to the Petrine ministry and see powerful links to the historical and political circumstances then present in the West. I alluded to this in a previous discussion over at Sacramentum Vitae.[2] Fr. Kimel also appears to date ultramontanism from the First Vatican Council.[3] To say that Fr. Kimel’s dating shocked me would be putting it mildly. The language of the decrees of Vatican I is the epitome of moderation compared to some of the pretensions to papal power and prerogatives which preceded it. One need only glance at the wording of the Bull Unam Sanctam of Boniface VIII for evidence of this.[4] One may indeed look as far back as the remarkable claims of St. Leo the Great, pointed out to me in a gentle but well aimed rebuke to one of my earlier posts by Dr. William Tighe.[5]

On one point I am in strong agreement with Father Kimel. The East has suffered from its estrangement from the Christian West. This tragic truth is undeniable. But again this cuts both ways. In its isolation from her sister churches and the theological phronema of the East following the schism, Rome had virtually no restraints or temporizing influence on its ambitions and claims. And there was no effective counterbalance to the rise of the scholastics which wreaked so much havoc theologically in the Latin Church. Nor was the isolation of the East as complete as Fr. Kimel seems to imply. Russia, especially from the time of Czar Peter (the not so great), was heavily exposed to all things western. And yet the Russian Church seems to never have seriously considered reunion with Rome. This was certainly not for want of exposure. Exposure was everywhere as a result of Peter’s efforts to “modernize” Russia and also from the periodic invasions from Catholic Poland and other locals. Nor did Peter for all of his occidentophile tendencies attempt to force the Russian Church into any union with Rome. [6]

Fr. Kimel asserts that the Roman Catholic Church is more catholic as a result of its centralization. He correctly identifies the cafeteria style theology now prevalent in much of Europe and the United States as one of the major problems facing the Roman Catholic Church. However I would respectfully argue that the long term solution is not a papal monarchy but rather the restoration of an Orthodox phronema or sensus fidei to the faithful of the Western Church. A short term abandonment of the papal prerogatives is unrealistic given the present situation in the Western Church. However long term this would be the best course of action.

Despite the fairly chaotic jurisdictional soup that is the Orthodox Church today we share one faith. We may occasionally throw furniture at each other when someone mentions the word “calendar” but we still recite the same creed and no one is arguing for the ordination of women. Fr Kimel also comments on the centralized powers of the papacy… “This is the great advantage in possessing a divinely instituted center of unity: it keeps, as Stanley Hauerwas likes to quip, the Irish and Italians, the Franciscans, Dominicans, and Jesuits, in one Church.” Try keeping Greeks Russians Arabs and Serbs in one church without a central authority! There is no other way to explain that beyond the working of the Holy Spirit.

---

[1] Obviously there were exceptions on the fringes of the Russian state where territory traded hands as a result of wars and other occurrences.

[2] http://mliccione.blogspot.com/2006/11/choosing-apostolic-communions.html

[3] “I'm know that papalist positivism--whatever the Pope speaks is God's truth--characterized post-Vatican I Catholicism for a hundred years; but this certainly is no longer the case.” Fr. Al Kimel

[4] It is also worth noting that the aforementioned bull was issued at a time when the Holy See was involved in a highly political and nasty feud with Philip IV of France. Mere coincidence of course.

[5] http://mliccione.blogspot.com/2006/11/choosing-apostolic-communions.html comment 1

[6] In fairness this was as likely a political consideration as much as anything else.

The Pontificator is Ordained

Al Kimel of Pontifications was ordained as a Roman Catholic priest today. This is the culmination of his long journey from the Episcopal Church. He will exercise his ministry under the pastoral provision for former Anglican clergy granted by HH +John Paul Magnus of blessed memory. I hope that pictures of this joyous event will soon be posted. May God grant Fr. Alvin Kimel many many years!

San Joaquin Secedes

I am not sure if this is the equivalent of Ft. Sumter. But the diocese of San Joaquin in CA (I actually live within its geographic boundaries) has become the first diocese of The Episcopal Church (TEC) to take formal steps to end its affiliation with the radical liberal denomination whose actions are threatening to tear apart the World Wide Anglican Communion (WWAC). Undeterred by bullying and threats from the liberals now running TEC bishop Schofield has been firmly guiding his diocese (the only one in the US that does not ordain women) towards the exit ever since the General Convention last summer.

In his remarks he has consistently referred to TEC's broad church theology as heresy, and has been unwavering that neither he nor his diocese were prepared to remain in a denomination that had so blatantly abandoned the Apostolic Christian faith. The resolutions passed by the diocese overwhelmingly have replaced all references to TEC with the term Anglican and make it clear the diocese considers itself a part of the WWAC. Bp. Schofield is fairly certain that TEC's days in the WWAC are numbered and he has made it clear where he wants to be when the dust settles.

Now if only we could get him to look at Orthodoxy...

Energetic Procession is back!

It is with great pleasure that I can report that Dan Jones web site Energetic Procession has returned after a long absence. It's been once again restored to my "A" list in the sidebar of recommended web sites. Please note the new web address for your book marks. This is one of the best sites on the web for discussion of serious theological issues with an emphasis on Orthodox Triadology.

The Filioque (Again)

Michael Liccione has posted an essay on the perennial topic of the Filioque over at Sacramentum Vitae. In addition to this interesting article I would recommend the articles posted by Al Kimel on the subject. Finally there is a pretty descent overview of the issue from an Orthodox POV located here. It also has some links to excellent essays and articles on the subject. Caution some of these articles are not light reading.

Under the Turkish Guns, the Christians Roar

It is the peculiar genius of Byzantine history that its glory reached its apogee in the era known to the West as the Dark Ages. It has no great literary heritage – a half-millenium of Muslim domination ensured the annihilation from memory of its major works beyond the Alexiad of Anna Comnena, the anonymous epic of Digenes Akritis, and various religious texts. The latter survived because the Church survived, even as the Empire did not. Chief among them are the great liturgies, and chief among the great liturgies is the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom. It is the queen of liturgies: a Greek epic of its own, also of the Western Dark Ages, emphatic and deliberate in its insistent worship of Christ. The liturgy has a heavenly glory in its song and prayer. It also has a mundane length to it. Properly done, it lasts hours. Yesterday, it lasted five hours, from 8am to 1pm. It’s a feat of endurance for the best Christian – particularly as the great majority of it has one standing. I am not among the best Christians. But yesterday, I did it.

Yesterday, I was in the Church of St George at the compound of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in the Fener district of Istanbul. Across from me sat the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I, holder of the last office of the Eastern Empire, and spiritual leader of the Orthodox Christians of the world. Mere feet away, within arm’s reach, sat Pope Benedict XVI....

Read the rest here.
Hat tip to Fr. Huneycutt