Some thoughts on a posting made elsewhere...
First, for any who still bother checking out this blog (a stubborn bunch you must be!), I apologize for being so tardy about updating it as of late. In part this was due to my having so precious little to say, and in part due to the ebb and flow of life (with it's stresses and demands.) Again, my apologies.
Serge's A Conservative Blog For Peace brought to my attention an article by Alvin Kimmel on the subject of "Rome" which can be read by clicking the following link...
"The undeniable, offensive, glorious fact of Rome"
Perhaps some would simply accuse me of Protestant-style "no Popery"* - but I've yet to see the compelling argument for "Papism" in any variety, whether it be the Italian, Greek, or Russian forms. At least a compelling arugment for "Papism" proper - meaning, exagerated juristictional claims, which reduce any given ecclessiology to obedience-to/communion-with this-particular-bishop.
Given human nature, it's hard to not have at any one time someone "coming out on top, someone having more influence, or the simple practical need for someone to excercise some form of leadership when "the many" are collectively assembled. That is a practical reality, and one which I do not think Orthodox Christianity has fundamental problems with. Acceptance of this is implied by the existance of arch-episcopal titles (Metropolitan, Archbishop, Patriarch, Ecumenical Patriarch, etc. etc.), and the canonical rights that have often been attatched to those titles by custom and the consent of other Churches.
However it would seem to me there is a world of difference between this, and and anything resembling what I would call "unconditional leadership" and "unconiditonal authority" - which is what is implied in teaching any hierarch is above the judgement of his brothers (as the Pope of elder-Rome does), the unfailing litmus test of just who "is in the Church" (as elder-Rome does), and by default is of unfailing faith (which is implied, in spite of historical facts which show the falsity of this, in teaching his automatic authority, universal juristiction, supremecy, personal infallibility no matter how qualified, etc. etc.)
Btw. while Rome is the worst offender in this regard, this kind of "Papism" is really much broader temptation, which most arch-episcopal See's of great importance have been tempted by at one point or another (ex. Constantinople, arguably to this day, has been on-again/off-again tempted by the idea that Orthodox ecclessiology can be reduced to it's consent.)
Really, putting one's faith in the sons of men is a waste of time - they are reliable, in so far as they are faithful. If they have Light, they they can and ought to be followed. If they do not, they should be regarded in kind.
Thus, one can harp endlessly about the "fact of Rome", and confuse the glories of this world with those of the Kingdom of God - but in the end, if the Pope, the Ecumenical Patriarch, the Patriarch of Moscow, etc. is not teaching in the Apostolic Succession (which is far more that the mere laying on of hands - this is only the most exoteric, and superficial aspect of said succession), then their place as a cultural or political force is of little meaning in the sight of eternity - after all, the Ayatollah is viewed with such reverence as well by quite a healthy slice of the human family.
In other words, there is no authority apart from truth (Orthodoxy.) A Bishop is not to be obeyed, if he teaches heresy - and a Bishop cannot claim to be first amongst his brethren (let alone anything beyond this!), if he teaches something other than the truth.
* - Though this really is not an accusation that means much to me, as I usually find it being used as an attempt to end legitimate discussion - I guess many Roman Catholics believe to be accused of being "a Protestant" is the ultimate put-down, and something that any respectable person would want to avoid being associated with in the least. Comparing some aspects of Orthodoxy to Protestantism is no more offensive than making certain comparisons between it and Catholicism.
Serge's A Conservative Blog For Peace brought to my attention an article by Alvin Kimmel on the subject of "Rome" which can be read by clicking the following link...
"The undeniable, offensive, glorious fact of Rome"
Perhaps some would simply accuse me of Protestant-style "no Popery"* - but I've yet to see the compelling argument for "Papism" in any variety, whether it be the Italian, Greek, or Russian forms. At least a compelling arugment for "Papism" proper - meaning, exagerated juristictional claims, which reduce any given ecclessiology to obedience-to/communion-with this-particular-bishop.
Given human nature, it's hard to not have at any one time someone "coming out on top, someone having more influence, or the simple practical need for someone to excercise some form of leadership when "the many" are collectively assembled. That is a practical reality, and one which I do not think Orthodox Christianity has fundamental problems with. Acceptance of this is implied by the existance of arch-episcopal titles (Metropolitan, Archbishop, Patriarch, Ecumenical Patriarch, etc. etc.), and the canonical rights that have often been attatched to those titles by custom and the consent of other Churches.
However it would seem to me there is a world of difference between this, and and anything resembling what I would call "unconditional leadership" and "unconiditonal authority" - which is what is implied in teaching any hierarch is above the judgement of his brothers (as the Pope of elder-Rome does), the unfailing litmus test of just who "is in the Church" (as elder-Rome does), and by default is of unfailing faith (which is implied, in spite of historical facts which show the falsity of this, in teaching his automatic authority, universal juristiction, supremecy, personal infallibility no matter how qualified, etc. etc.)
Btw. while Rome is the worst offender in this regard, this kind of "Papism" is really much broader temptation, which most arch-episcopal See's of great importance have been tempted by at one point or another (ex. Constantinople, arguably to this day, has been on-again/off-again tempted by the idea that Orthodox ecclessiology can be reduced to it's consent.)
Really, putting one's faith in the sons of men is a waste of time - they are reliable, in so far as they are faithful. If they have Light, they they can and ought to be followed. If they do not, they should be regarded in kind.
Thus, one can harp endlessly about the "fact of Rome", and confuse the glories of this world with those of the Kingdom of God - but in the end, if the Pope, the Ecumenical Patriarch, the Patriarch of Moscow, etc. is not teaching in the Apostolic Succession (which is far more that the mere laying on of hands - this is only the most exoteric, and superficial aspect of said succession), then their place as a cultural or political force is of little meaning in the sight of eternity - after all, the Ayatollah is viewed with such reverence as well by quite a healthy slice of the human family.
In other words, there is no authority apart from truth (Orthodoxy.) A Bishop is not to be obeyed, if he teaches heresy - and a Bishop cannot claim to be first amongst his brethren (let alone anything beyond this!), if he teaches something other than the truth.
* - Though this really is not an accusation that means much to me, as I usually find it being used as an attempt to end legitimate discussion - I guess many Roman Catholics believe to be accused of being "a Protestant" is the ultimate put-down, and something that any respectable person would want to avoid being associated with in the least. Comparing some aspects of Orthodoxy to Protestantism is no more offensive than making certain comparisons between it and Catholicism.
posted by The Rambler at 9:42 PM
4 Comments:
1. 'Which bishop are you under?' is pretty basic ecclesiology - after all in Eastern Orthodoxy, for example, a priest functionally isn't a priest (unlike in Western Catholicism he can't even validly liturgize) without an antimins signed by his bishop on the holy table. He is a priest only in as much as he represents his bishop.
2. But the Pope isn't above 'the rule of law' (tradition, including defined doctrines) just like any other bishop. St Robert Bellarmine covered that - if a Pope goes against a defined doctrine then ipso facto he isn't Pope anymore and becomes an antipope.
3. but in the end, if the Pope, the Ecumenical Patriarch, the Patriarch of Moscow, etc. is not teaching in the Apostolic Succession ... then their place as a cultural or political force is of little meaning in the sight of eternity...
In other words, there is no authority apart from truth (Orthodoxy.) A Bishop is not to be obeyed, if he teaches heresy - and a Bishop cannot claim to be first amongst his brethren (let alone anything beyond this!), if he teaches something other than the truth.
OK, so what about artificial contraception? On this many/most modern Eastern Orthodox teach something other than the truth, the truth being what all Christians, including the Orthodox, agreed on before the early 20th century and not making excuses for non-abortifacients (that is, not the modern EO position: 'by "potions" the Fathers only meant abortifacients so you can use condoms, etc.').
I know the equivalency argument about natural family planning and non-abortifacient artificial means and it sounds good... but again no Christian church taught this until the Anglican Communion caved in 1930, using language as cautious and conservative (only by married couples, not for selfish reasons - !) as that used by the modern EOs.
They opened a Pandora's box with that one.
The argument perhaps even used by those conservative Orthodox you prefer - 'it's between a couple and their confessor' or only OK in hard cases - doesn't work either. (Sounds awfully like the pro-abortion dodge - 'it's between a woman and her doctor'.) Certainly a priest or bishop doesn't have the authority to change the laws of God and nature, however widely one views economy. So claiming is far bigger than anything Western Catholic teaching says of the Pope!
Hello Serge!
1. I don't think you'd find me taking issue with any of this.
2. While I think what you're saying here is more or less in line with what St.Robert Bellarmine taught, unfortunately it's somewhat "outdated" as is the teaching of many Roman Catholic doctors and saints in light of later Latin "dogmas" - simply put, there is no more place for Bellarmine's views of the Papacy in post Vatican I Catholicism than there is for Aquinas' views on the Immaculate Conception in post Pope Pius IX Catholicism.
It is precisely what happened with Gallicanism - a fact of Western (post-schism) Christianity which in fact saved the Latin Church from an enduring schism, but which was later "written out of history" because it did not suit Papal pretentions (the belief that Ecumenical Councils were superior to the Popes.)
btw. for the bogus ultramontane dogma of "Papal Infallibility" (I can hardly say enough bad about it, as it now stands as the single biggest stumbling block toward a re-united global Christendom) to actually stick, the hypothetical reality of a Pope's faith "failing" and thus teaching heresy, would have to be an impossibility - if for the simple fact that post 19th century Catholicism roundly rejects the possibility of anyone "judging the Pope", which is precisely what you'd need to do to actually identify him as a heretic and take canonical measures to depose him.
3. I find it interesting that the issue of contraception is such a "big deal" for you (a relatively unimportant issue as far as the hierarchy of sins against purity and our fellow man goes, no matter how you slice it), while far more weighty theological matters (whose object is God Himself) seem to be of relatively little importance in your "catholic" ecclessiology.
Additionally, I think you've been duped by the oversimplification of this issue by the modern Vatican doctrine on this topic, which presents a very false "united front" to a topic which had diverse rationale and practical applications in times past. For example, as far as many of the Lefebvrists are concerened, Humanae Vitae and the post Vatican II establishment have liberalized on this topic; and from a certain perspective, this is correct. Unfortunately, there were many opinions on just what the sin involved here was, and how grave it was, and when. The reality, IMHO is that the Orthodox world has on the whole arrived at a different conclusion than that of the Latins (basically, for us, there are some circumstances in which the use of contraceptives by a married couple does not require they be forbidden from the Chalice.)
I also find it's interesting that Orthodox Christianity has reached a fairly homogenous approach to this topic, without one person acting as "uber-bishop" and pontificating to the rest of the world.
I think you need to familiarize yourself more with what the Orthodox position on this topic is (since it's not bacchanalic licence, or even the belief that the topic is morally neutral no matter what the circumstances), and at least begin to question the bogus "natural law" arguments which are really all that is left of the (modern) Latin position on this topic.
1. OK.
2. Good answer! I don't agree with it, though. I haven't read anywhere that St Robert Bellarmine's statement has been reversed/superseded.
3. No, I'm not sex-mad. The point is that the Orthodox changed their view on this sometime after 1930, which calls into question their claim that they haven't changed one jot of what the Fathers taught.
while far more weighty theological matters (whose object is God Himself) seem to be of relatively little importance in your "catholic" ecclessiology.
You know better - shame on you! See above - my blog covers a lot more than this issue.
Interesting that you appeal to a kind of 'hierarchy of truths' when I bring this issue up. Rather Vatican II that. I thought that Eastern Orthodoxy didn't go in for that and claimed to teach the full faith unaltered. Sorry, but it sounds like: 'It isn't such a "big deal" so won't you please let me sweep it under the rug so I can get back into my comfort zone?'
the post-Vatican II establishment have liberalized on this topic; and from a certain perspective, this is correct.
I see what you're talking about but the fact remains that the Vatican has upheld the common Christian teaching pre-1930 about artificial means. And I answered the NFP/artificial-birth-control equivalency argument in the comments in my blog.
Unfortunately, there were many opinions on just what the sin involved here was, and how grave it was, and when.
But all Catholics and indeed once all Christians agreed that it was wrong.
The reality, IMHO is that the Orthodox world has on the whole arrived at a different conclusion than that of the Latins
Yes, after 1930, which is an awfully long time after the Church Fathers gave no permission for artificial birth control whatsoever.
(basically, for us, there are some circumstances in which the use of contraceptives by a married couple does not require they be forbidden from the Chalice.)
Again, so sorry, but the Church Fathers and all Christian churches, including the one you identify with, didn't agree with that until very recently.
I think you need to familiarize yourself more with what the Orthodox position on this topic is
I already have. The modern position essentially has been pinched from mainline Protestantism (the conservative 1930 version), not got from the Fathers or elsewhere in tradition.
(since it's not bacchanalic licence, or even the belief that the topic is morally neutral no matter what the circumstances)
Which is exactly what the Anglicans said in 1930 when they were the first Christians to change their minds about this.
and at least begin to question the bogus "natural law" arguments which are really all that is left of the (modern) Latin position on this topic
After about 20 years of thinking about it I'm convinced that they're true.
Sorry, old chap. Nice try, though.
Maybe the World Orthodox started changing around the early 1900's, but you would be hard pressed to find a priest or bishop of the ROAC, GOC, et al to teach that birth control is okay.
So it is not an excuse to leave Orthodoxy as the former Reader Serge, who according to his own blog now goes as John again, but to find where true Orthodoxy still exists.
Since John loves the SSPX so much, it is odd he would not realize that Orthodoxy has what some might call it's equivalence.
Post a Comment
<< Home