Monday 27 April 2015

I believe one, &c...


I believe ONE holy catholick and apostolick church...

It wasn't that long ago that I thought all the Roman communion had to do to magically reclaim her orthodoxy was for the pope to infallibly proclaim his own fallibility and then dismantle the Novus Ordo. Then he would take his place as primus inter pares of the bishops of a reunited Christian Church and we'd all live happily ever after. Of course, that's a load of old rubbish. The hermeneutic of continuity has never worked in the direction of orthodoxy! If anything, all Rome can do now, indeed all she is capable of doing, is become more and more aliturgical, more and more cut off from her tradition (and the broader tradition of the Fathers, both western and eastern) and simultaneously more moralistic and just plain weird. I remember during the visit of Benedict XVI to these shores Sinéad O'Connor did an interview on the BBC which, at the time, I shrugged off as cynical nonsense, very much in her manner. I'm afraid I can't find the video on YouTube but she said something about how ridiculous to take seriously an old man in a white dress. And she does have a point, if rather crudely put. The neo-conservatives, with their catechism and rosary crusades, might let on otherwise but Rome doesn't really care in what people believe. If she did, the liturgical experimentations of the 20th century would never have been given the papal stamp of approval. Instead, all that matters is that you are in communion with Rome. You can worship, think, act in any way that you like; just so long as you (nominally) obey the pope. If this is the case, why should we take the old man in the white dress seriously?

And this obsession with acknowledging papal supremacy despite contrary customs and traditions is as old as the hills. At Ferrara in 1438, the Greek acknowledgement of the pope's universal and immediate jurisdiction was a matter considerably more important to Eugenius IV than the Filioque, purgatorial fire or the use of leavened or unleavened bread in the Eucharist. Similar overtures can be read in the encyclical letters of Pius IX and Leo XIII "to the Easterns," in which both popes profess carelessness about the venerable Eastern traditions so long as they exist within Roman jurisdiction. Even in the Latin church itself, and this was brought home to me for the first time in 2007 when, as a traditionalist, I first encountered neo-conservatives with a preference for the "traditional Latin Mass" in a parish setting. I was told that I had the "wrong attitude" because, at that time, I was advocating abrogation of the Novus Ordo and its replacement by the "Old Rite." But I acknowledged papal supremacy so it didn't really matter either way. And this is to say nothing of whether liberals and the traditionalists even share the same faith! But I entreat you all sincerely, is this really the oneness and unity of the Confession of Faith? Because it seems to me that this oneness exists only on paper. And to come back to what I said at the beginning, about the pope dismantling the papacy, what do you think would happen if he did that? We can only imagine but I expect the whole thing would implode, like when Éowyn pierced the Lord of the Nine Riders. One blow and what seemed to threatening and imposing just disappeared. If you apply this principle to the secular realm, like dictatorships, once they are set up, and the defining principle of statehood becomes absolute obedience to the dictator's will, any subsequent weakening of that dictatorship ineluctably brings about the destruction of the state.

If the oneness of the Church then consists solely in obedience to the pope, and it is pretty obvious that the centralized papacy is the only thing that keeps the structure intact these days, is there any hope for the reunion of the churches? Is it not scandalous that competing communions confess the same Creed and yet have entirely different beliefs, not only about the oneness and unity of the Church but all other subtleties in theology and praxis? For Rome, the "living magisterium," papal supremacy is not open for discussion. Take it or leave it. The pope is the pontifex maximus, the guarantor of orthodoxy and the communion of Christ. That this communion is a complete waste of time at the level of peoples' faith and worship notwithstanding, the papacy is actually the most divisive and controversial figure in the entire history of Christianity. In the words of Professor Southern (quoted by Dr Geoffrey Hull):

"In 1453 the papal view of Christendom had triumphed. More than any other force it had been responsible for giving western Christendom an independent existence in the eighth century, and for providing the doctrinal basis for western supremacy from the eleventh century onwards. The movement toward Conciliar government in the church, which might have offered a new path to unity, had in the end collapsed, not least because of the strength of the papacy. So, from the point of view of Christendom as a whole, the papacy was the great divisive force throughout the Middle Ages." (The Banished Heart, p.130).

So much for "bridge-builder."

People often say, stupidly, that Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy are so similar. They are not similar in any way, except superficially. So in terms of Christian unity, if, as we Orthodox hope, the pope steps down from his lofty position, that won't help at all. He would just leave a vacuum because he is all there is to Roman Catholicism. Pope, pope, pope. Put simply, we don't really want the communion of Roman Catholics because even if they did away with the pope, the damage has been done already. The whole system was buggered by centuries of decadent liturgy, bad theology and worldly king-popes. There is absolutely no hope for the union of the churches. The only way to truly confess the oneness of the Church is to actually personally join that One Church, which is the Orthodox Church of Christ.

25 comments:

  1. You aren't even Orthodox yet and you presume to speak for that church? Even when you get "rebaptised", you will need to leave the pontificating to your hierarchs. Are you getting instruction from a priest?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, I just go to services and speak to no one, then go home.

      Delete
    2. James, I fail to see where Patrick was speaking for the Orthodox church, if you reread the posting, you will find that he is simply quoting historical issues. I am offended that you seem to be offended. But, perhaps what Patrick will find in this posting from you, is that the Byzantine Orthodox are just as clergy driven, narrow minded, bigoted, and personal nasty as are most Catholic traditionalists.

      Delete
  2. Patrick, almost absolutely correct when you declare :"Pope, pope, pope"; but one of the most succinct expressions I ever heard, once again from an elderly priest was that the basis of modern Roman Catholic traditionalists was, "Pope, celibacy, and Latin."

    Please do not get too carried away with the Byzantine Orthodox, they are not really much of an improvement; with their abortion supporting Ecumenical Patriarch on one hand and their Putin serving Russian version on the other, it all looks not too much better to be honest.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Who is the "ecumenical patriarch?" He means nothing to me. I feel sorry for him living in modern Turkey, I have to say, but beyond that I don't really have much sympathy for Bartholomew. He is just another bishop.

      I admire Putin. He's one of a handful of truly great statesmen in the world. I'd rather have him in charge than Mr Let's-fill-Parliament-with-Muslims Cameron.

      Delete
    2. The issue is not simply one of Mr Putin,but the fact that the Russian Church, by far the largest Byzantine group, continues to act as servants to their political masters. Mr Putin is, for many considered, to be a conservative, hence, the Church reflects this nationalist conservatism. When Mr Putin recently declared that the Russian Church is important because it teaches the young to be Russian nationalists, there is a problem. Does the Church not exist as more than simply an extension of the state?

      In the United States, the opposite tends to be the case, the present Greek Archbishop actually visited the pro-Abortionist Mr Obama and literally grovelled before him, declaring Mr Obama to be the "New Alexander" (this can be found on youtube, but be careful it takes a strong stomach).

      The Church as handmaiden to the state is, at least for me, problematic.

      Delete
    3. Well, I agree in principle but I also think that Church should not be separate from the State. In an ideal world, government ministers would be dutiful sons of the State Church and the State Church would be an orthodox, liturgical communion with correct moral teachings.

      Obama is...an Antichrist.

      I do think there is more to being a Christian than being a member of a particular communion that teaches a set of doctrines which few take seriously. Think what you will about the End Times but we are in the great apostate times and I doubt we can really rely on our hierarchs to uphold the faith. As Fr Anthony says so often on his blog, churches should really become more like small family units in the post-post-modern world.

      Delete
  3. I AM the Way, the Truth, and the Life”.
    “YOU are Peter, and on this Rock ...”
    “Those whose sins YOU remit…… those whose sins you retain…..”
    It’s about authority, I’m afraid, Patricius.
    I enjoy surveying your gallery of rogues and heroes, who seem to me to be your arbitrary choice depending on how you feel on a given day. It really doesn’t matter if you call yourself Orthodox, because you’ll be something else next week. Your blog puts me in mind of one of the many wonderful quotes from A man for All Seasons - More’s response to his wavering son-in-law: “Listen, Roper. Two years ago you were a passionate Churchman; now you’re a passionate – Lutheran. We must just pray, that when your head’s finished turning your face is to the front again”.
    Oh well, my boss is giving me a funny look. Time to get back to work....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's right. Everything I say is arbitrary and shallow...

      Delete
    2. But since Peter also founded the See of Antioch, is that Patriarch also personally infallible? What is also lacking in most of this papal drivel is the need to falsify Church documents to prove not only personal infallibility but universal jurisdiction as well. For centuries it was based upon the supposed "Donation of Constantine," which is a forgery, and what is interesting is that at the time of the forgery, no one was pretending that the Pope's universal jurisdiction came from Christ as a gift to Peter, but from the first Christian Roman Emperor!

      The Greek original of the phrase so often mis-quoted in the Latin West, "thou art Peter" is better translated as "this is the faith and upon this faith I will build my church": if you can remember your old scripture lessons it begins with Christ asking whom do you say I am, to which Peter responded, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God"; it is upon this faith that the Church is founded, not personalities.

      Delete
    3. All true bishops are successors of St Peter, and all the apostles. It's an aberration to claim that bishops of Rome alone have that claim and continue his "petrine" ministry uniquely.

      As for Tu es Petrus, the Fathers took it as in no wise referring to the bishops of Rome uniquely. St Cyprian of Carthage took it to mean the authority possessed in each see by the bishop of that see. And really, you'd have to be really stupid to argue for papal supremacy on those few words alone. Hence the Donation of Constantine, exposed by a Dominican philologist (I forget his name) in the 15th century. The Papacy is a complete fraud. Would that Napoleon or Garibaldi had done away with it in some dark and narrow place!

      Delete
    4. Yes, S Cyprian, as I remember, stated that where there is the bishop, there is the Church. He did not state, where there is the Pope of Rome, there is the Church. But ultramontane Catholics are quite happy with their falsified documents, otherwise they would have to admit that their ecclesiology is a fake, well, it is, but admitting it is another matter.

      Patrick, you may be interested in reading "The Pope and the Councils" by Doellinger, it is fascinating. His knowledge on all of this is simply breathtaking. The papal modernist hate him; and since they could not respond to his scholarship, they simply excommunicated him and put his book on the Index.

      Delete
    5. You chaps are far more knowledgeable on this than I am. But my own authority on such matters, Wikipedia, informs me that "According to Catholic theology [the Dogmatic Definition of 1870 re papal infallibility]. .... is an infallible dogmatic definition by an ecumenical council".

      That's good enough for me. Once you start dining a la carte at the table of ecumenical councils, you are in big trouble.

      Delete
    6. Well, we'll have to agree to disagree. Vatican I was not an ecumenical council. It was a political move designed to shew off to the Italian nationalists just how much influence Pius IX had if not in Rome itself but the rest of the world at the height of his problems with the Italian nationalists. Those infamous words "I am the Tradition" were spoken to Mgr Guidi, a Dominican theologian who rejected papal infallilbility, during the Council.

      It was a very middle class, mediocre affair. There were no heads of state or princes present, there were no Orthodox or Anglican bishops. How is this, then, a council with "ecumenical" status? The Greek word
      οἰκουμένη means the civilised, inhabited world (or middle-earth) and a council enjoys that status only if summoned by the Emperor and if there are representatives of all bishops from the known world present. The pope is not the known world and his "ratification" of its decisions does not make a council ecumenical.

      Delete
    7. I forgot to add, that is even if anybody ascribes to Vatican I a status loftier than latrocinium, which is, in my view, what it was.

      Delete
  4. I know you don't take my little digs to heart.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Quite right. But I'd be interested to know who you think is in my gallery of rogues and heroes.

      Delete
  5. Thanks for your interest in my musings, Patricius. If this were a boxing match it would probably have been stopped by now.

    However.... it says on the tin that Vatican I is an ecumenical council. From a Roman Catholic standpoint that’s what it is. Until 4 years ago you presumably thought so, too. May I ask: now that you have declared yourself Orthodox, will you commit to upholding Orthodox belief, in toto? (Me and Vladimir Lossky would be glad to know). And if so, will you state this now, in words of one syllable, on your blog? Is Orthodoxy’s liturgy up to the mark? I mean, those Russian envoys thought so back in 988 but you can never be too careful.

    As regards the opportunism of Vatican I, your spin is worthy of Alastair Campbell. I think you’ll find that all councils were convoked to answer a pressing need of some kind. Trent and Vat II come to mind. And politics has a way of getting mixed up in it. The Great Schism, for instance, was about jurisdiction and papal authority, not the filioque. I’m sure Timmy Ware thinks so anyway.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anthony, are you trying to be rude, or are you simply stupid?

      Delete
    2. Rude or stupid...........I'd say both, after all he appears to be a papist.

      Delete
    3. I think the word is troll. Let me break it down:

      The charge of "instability" is to discredit anything I say as wayward or shallow. Elsewhere he (or she) has accused me of treating religion as an hobby so my faith is clearly non-existent. And converts from Romanism are, in a word, stupid because Wikipedia states that Vatican I enjoys ecumenical status and it says so on the tin.

      So, I am a faithless idiot who has no conviction.

      Delete
    4. Well, Patrick, at least you are not leaning your faith from Wikipedia!

      Delete
  6. I'm so sorry, thought we were having such fun, going to have a debate, but clearly not. Nobody answered my arguments, and our blog host pointedly refused to commit himself to his new belief system; he just called me a troll. I think that's double standards, Patricius.
    I might post the odd comment on "Fr D's" blog from time to time in future but otherwise my commenting career is over. My views aren't wanted. God Bless.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am sorry, but we most certainly did answer your arguments, of which your only reply was that you believed what Wikipedia said you had to believe...hardly a debate.

      As for the "new belief system" of Patrick, one could posit that it is simply the old belief system of most of the Christian west until Vatican I. The fact that it took Patrick time to discover this is to his credit, most never do.

      Delete
  7. I'd just like to say that I put virtually no effort into this post. It is largely formed of recollections from my readings in Owen and Henry Chadwick, Littledale and Geoffrey Hull...and yet it has received more comments and page views this week than any other post. Posts such as Silver and Gold, which I had to think deeply about, and the response is limited to one...and to be honest I wasn't expecting one!

    ReplyDelete