In a previous post, I expressed my profound sympathy with the Old Believers of the Russian Orthodox Church. It might be good for me to elaborate my thoughts on the Orthodox Church in general.
Until recently, I admired the great Orthodox Church. I have always marvelled at the inherent beauty of her Liturgy, which is the legacy of a long and pious Tradition, and which I have been privileged to experience on a few occasions. But I think that nowadays, this is the one and only thing I really admire about them. I remember at the time the Holy Father decided to drop the title ''Patriarch of the West'' talking to a Russian Orthodox man about it. I was against the decision, thinking the explanation of the emphasis on the Universal primacy of the Pope a stinking red herring, since this title encapsulates the special relationship that we, as Roman Rite Catholics, have with him and which Catholics of Eastern Christendom do not. He is not their Patriarch is he? To them, he is merely Pope. To Catholics living in the Eternal City herself, he is local Bishop, Archbishop, Metropolitan, Patriarch and Pope; in England he is simply Patriarch and Pope. Anyway, we argued over the other ''Papal titles,'' and he seemed especially indignant that the Church should decide to keep such ''arrogant'' titles as Vicar of Christ while doing away with a respectable one. He went quiet when I told him that at the time the Patriarch of Constantinople (not even an Apostolic See!) assumed the grandiloquent title ''Ecumenical Patriarch,'' (a pompous title which, in my opinion, compromises the rights and dignities of the Patriarch of Rome) the Popes of Rome adopted the title Servus Servorum Dei...
Whenever speaking to an Orthodox about ''Western'' affairs, I would adopt a somewhat apologetic persona and was almost always on the defensive. The two chief points were, need I say, the Filioque and the Papal claims, but I had to answer for other things as well, such as the Immaculate Conception, purgatorial fire, and in the case of an astute Orthodox, the present state of our Liturgy. This last point was especially painful for me, since they have had no liturgical crisis (except, arguably, the Nikon reforms - although what was this compared with what we have to put up with?), and so in the end I gave up. I stopped treating them as though they were our superiors (we are, in fact, their older brothers, not vice versa); I recognise and acknowledge the authority of the Pope, as Vicar of Christ and Universal Patriarch, they don't; I am a member of the True Church of Christ, they are unhappy schismatics, and for all their pretence of ''catholicity,'' most of their history since the Schism is riddled with petty squabbling over the rights of Constantinople, most of their hardly distinguished theologians have spent the best part of their time writing against us; but they have paid the recompense for their obstinate arrogance by being the long vassals of the Sultan; as Cardinal Humbert said, Videat Deus et iudicet.
In 1894, Pope Leo XIII sent out an Encyclical letter called Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae, generous and kindly and without any word of blame calling for the reunion of Christendom. The schismatic Orthodox bishops responded with this vituperative and poisonous encyclical letter, bringing up the old hackneyed arguments against the ''damnable heresies of Rome,'' the Filioque, Papal claims etc. Curiously, no mention is made of Azyme bread or Latin Bishops wearing rings, being clean-shaven or any other such thing (which in old times were the chief charges made against us, the Filioque being an afterthought!). It was the upstart Photius who first called the Filioque into question, and his bitterness about the Primacy of the Pope was because he couldn't stand being second after Rome. In any case, this appalling letter also mingles lies with the truth, at one point claiming that it was the ''custom'' of the holy fathers to hold Rome in the prime place simply because she was the capital of the Empire! What is this if not an anti-Evangelical and certainly Protestant heresy? In nothing is the hurt caused by the virtually blasphemous arrogance of Constantinople (now not even a shadow of what it once was) shown more clearly than in the great East-West Schism.
One thing I'd like to translate in the future is St Thomas Aquinas' Contra Errores Graecorum, but not yet. The above icon depicts ''saint'' Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople between 858-867 (although at the time of his election, he was a layman, and there are serious Canonical issues surrounding his appointment), he was deposed and excommunicated by Pope St Nicholas I, the greatest of all the Popes between Sts Gregory the Great and Gregory VII, and after the death of Ignatius in 877, was Patriarch until his death in 886. He was a great man according to his measure (an outstanding scholar, although he knew no Latin) but certainly prejudiced, and one of the many bogus saints of the Orthodox Church.
". . . and upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it." Discuss.
ReplyDeleteStrictly and historically speaking the original text of the Council of Constantinople did not contain the disputed word and it was expressly, under pain of anathema,( hear! hear!) forbidden to add, change or alter any word of the text. Further, no Pope ever declared the addition of the word ex cathedra and you know the story about Pope John VIII's Filioque-less plates. But Augustine in his treatise on the Trinity and elsewhere does mention double procession. While that authority of the East John of Damascus does not. This is worst than shibboleth. What should we do? Join in the sneering and patronising of Fortescue(and indirectly the grinning of the impious Gibbon)- howsoever much i appreciate his works on the Latin liturgy, or in the reverse sins. Basil does not mention it in his treatise either while i'm not sure for Hilary. But look at the beautiful synthesis of Richard of St-Victor: hic igitur amor, qui communis est ambodus, dictus est Spiritus sanctus; hic est ille qui a Patre et Filio sanctorum cordibus inspiratur, iste per quem sanctificantur, ut sancti esse mereantur. 6, x.
ReplyDeleteQuid enim est Spiritus sanctus nisi ignis divinus? Omnis enim amor est ignis sed ignis spiritualis. 6, xiv. And this is the love which is to animate Christians.
cf. Basil's De Spiritus Sancto, 9, xxiii.
cf. Athanasius's 3rd Epistle to Serapion, no.5
The works of Le Nain de Tillemont should be republished and his memory cleared of this pretended association with Gibbon. But shouldn't we learn the lesson of the learnt loremaster of Gondor and seek the athelas instead of lecturing upon it? God is also Mystery, the Mystery of Love.
I have a few online friends who are Orthodox, one of whom converted from the Catholic faith, much to my annoyance. Whenever they discuss the Catholic Church I can't help but think they fall into a kind of Donatism in their criticisms of us.
ReplyDeleteYes, they might have venerable liturgies and various other traditions, as well as sacraments and apostolic succession, but they are still schismatics. Communion with Peter is not optional. Having said that, I still see them as our true ecumenical partners (dialogue with Protestantism is useless), and that is coming from a person who is not an enthusiatic ecumenist. Things like the filioque are easy to resolve, in my opinion, and could quite easily be dropped from the Creed without having any real theological implications. The primacy of the Roman Pontiff is a different thing though, for despite overwhelming evidence from the early Church, they still refuse to accept his auhtority over the whole Church. Only God can bring about the change of heart that is needed on their part, and therefore all we can do is pray.
The double procession of the Holy Ghost was proclaimed a dogma of faith by the Council of Florence.
ReplyDeleteThat is, if one accepts the Council of Florence as being oecumenical. We must acknowledge the brief agreement of the Greeks on this subject was more out of principles of political necessity than anything else. And the Russians, who were still then following their ante-Nikonian liturgy did not(or little) participate therein. There is also the question of hesychasm, Gregory Palamas. These things are beyond the scope of blogging-and we know how much damage and harm is being done elsewhere on fora and other places. If i were to choose between de Maistre and Bossuet- my choice would go to Bossuet. But then, to have no choice is better. The common concern for tradition and the role Rome played in the first millenium as ecclesiastical supreme court of appeal could be the basis of common talks. + the emergence of the Holy Roman Empire and its relations to the Eastern Empire.
ReplyDeleteit is well known that the addition of the filioque was introduced as a result of pressure by charlemagne on the then pope to downgrade the empire of byzantium, and then further pressure on the pope by the normans of sicily provoked the schism of 1054.I would further suggest that the 'vituperative' sentiments of the author are not echoed by the attitude of the present pope who seems to be leaning`over backwards to effect reconciliation between the two churches.
ReplyDeleteas you do not believethat the see of Constantinople is apostolic we as orthodox find it hard to accept the popes' claims as being the vicar of Christ and the servant of the servants of God. i could name a few popos who certainly weren't. pope julius ii comes to mind. we orthodox certainly accept the pope's position as honorary head of the pentarchy spritually but not authoritavely.
By the way, You do not represent the Catholic church, as you contantly refer to yourselves. You are the roman church of the church of Christ as we are the Eastern church of Christ
The primacy of the Roman Pontiff is a different thing though, for despite overwhelming evidence from the early Church, they still refuse to accept his auhtority over the whole Church.
ReplyDeleteAlas, poor Jaroslav Pelikan! It's a terrible thing, ignorance of the Fathers and the "early Church"!