Article available for seven days only.
Wall Street Journal FREDERICA MATHEWES-GREEN
July 15, 2005; Page W13
“The need is felt to join forces and spare no energies” to renew dialogue between Catholic and Orthodox Christians, said Pope Benedict XVI. In comments to delegates of the Patriarch of Constantinople on June 30, the pope explained that “the unity we seek is neither absorption nor fusion, but respect for the multiform fullness of the Church.”
Outsiders may wonder: Why don’t those two venerable churches just kiss and make up? From the outside, they look a lot alike. Each church claims roots in earliest Christian history. The dispute that split them is a thousand years old. Isn’t it time to move on?
It is my own Orthodox brethren who appear to be the cranky partners. Catholics have been making friendly overtures for more than a decade now. Pope John Paul II even said that the extent of papal power — over which the two churches split in the 11th century — could be “open to a new situation.” Both churches hold as ideal a united body with Rome as “first among equals.” Yet the Orthodox drag their feet, sometimes seeming downright rude. A Catholic friend tells me that the attitude seems to be: “Take this olive branch and shove it.”
The Orthodox Church is smaller and less powerful, so we don’t get much opportunity to explain how things seem from our perspective. But it comes down to two words: “unity” and “chaos.”
From a Roman Catholic perspective, unity is created by the institution of the church. Within that unity there can be diversity; not everyone agrees with official teaching, some very loudly. What holds things together is membership. This kind of unity makes immediate sense to Americans: Whatever their disagreements, everyone salutes the flag, and all Catholics salute, if not technically obey, Rome’s magisterium.
When Roman Catholics look at Orthodoxy, they don’t see a centralized, global institution. Instead, the church appears to be a jumble of national and ethnic bodies (a situation even more confused in the U.S. as a result of immigration). To Catholics, the Orthodox Church looks like chaos.
But from an Orthodox perspective, unity is created by believing the same things. It’s like the unity among vegetarians or Red Sox fans. You don’t need a big bureaucracy to keep them faithful. Across wildly diverse cultures, Orthodox Christians show remarkable unity in their faith. (Of course there are plenty of power struggles and plain old sin, but the essential faith isn’t challenged.) What’s the source of this common faith? The consensus of the early church, which the Orthodox stubbornly keep following. That consensus was forged with many a bang and dent, but for the past millennium major questions of faith and morals have been pretty much at rest in the Eastern hemisphere.
“From a Roman Catholic perspective, unity is created by the institution of the church. Within that unity there can be diversity; not everyone agrees with official teaching, some very loudly.”
I think this statement does the Catholic Church a terrible diservice. Yes there are people who claim to be Catholic but dissent against Catholic doctrine. However, the Church itself teaches that assent to doctrine is required. Furthermore, the Church does not teach that unity is “created by the institution of the church.” Unity is in Christ. To the extent we are united, it is because we are members of the body of Christ. Based on my limited understand of the Orthodox Church, I think its teaching on unity is similar.
Also, I am a Roman Catholic and I am certainly not confused by “a jumble of national and ethnic bodies.” There is one item that I find somewhat confusing about Orthodoxy. That is that there does not appear to be an authoritative reference that defines Orthodox doctrine. If I am wrong about that, I applogize. For Catholics, a quick reference to the Catechism gives a very easy way to find the Church teaching on almost any subject. I have not seen a similar publication for Orthodoxy that has the approval of the full Church.
Steve, you will never find such a document (Fr. Hans, please correct if I’m wrong on this). You will see references made to the Councils, to the Desert Fathers, to the Saints, to the various Patriarchs, and, of course, Scripture and Holy Tradition. You will never have an Orthodox tell you “go here to find out what the Church teaches.”
BTW, thank you, Steve, for pointing out Mathewes-Green’s error. I found her description of unity among Catholics to be … well … biased in favor of Orthodoxy (since she is Orthodox this doesn’t surprise me). The exposition of some Catholics has blinded her to the substance of the Catholic Church.
Furthermore, I know a great many Orthodox who have no problem accepting abortion, divorce, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, cloning and many other issues. I doubt that Mathewes-Green would confuse this dissent by some Orthodox as proving that unity among the Orthodox is maintained merely by “the institution of the church.” In fact, I would bet that she and a great many other Orthodox Christians would get very upset if one was to write that ethnicity plays a greater role in unity among the Orthodox than does faith. And they would be rightly upset because this position confuses exposition for substance.
No,there is not a catechism as such, although there are several people working on one. I’m not sure we would ever have a resource as comprehensive as Roman Catholicism has, although in some cases it would be good to have more than what we presently have, IMO.
All in all, I think FMG did a fair job in describing the differences in terms of perception. I wouldn’t take her criticism of Catholicism as anything more than how a non-insider perceives some of the doctrinal and liturgical rancor we see in the Catholic church.
Jaroslav Pelikan spoke on this topic a few years ago in Minneapolis, at the annual James Cunningham Memorial Lecture (which, if I’m not mistaken, Fr. Hans played a large role in founding; Fr. Hans, am I correct?). Pelikan’s essential point was that the confessional identity of the Orthodox Church is to be found in its liturgical worship rather than in centralized statements like a catechism; indeed, that the practice of dogmatic theology is somewhat foreign to Orthodoxy, and began only with Peter the Great’s western-influenced “reforms” in the Russian church during his rule. (Some hold that “western influence” refers to church chandelier design, especially at St. Vlad’s, but that’s not what I’m referring to here).
Is a catechism really such a good idea for the Orthodox Church? Or would this alarm those who don’t want legalistic reasoning entering the Orthodox ethos?
Frederica writes:
“But from an Orthodox perspective, unity is created by believing the same things.”
I think I understand what she means here, but what she has written can’t really be true. Unity is not created by believing the same things, but by the Holy Spirit through the Mysteries. Baptism, Chrismation and the Eucharist make us members, make us One. Believing the same as the Orthodox doesn’t make you Orthodox. I know that Frederica wouldn’t disagree, but it’s unfortunate that a protestant reader might be able to identify a little too easily with what she says, i.e. if you believe, you’re in.
Frederica Mathewes-Green writes: “What’s the source of this common faith? The consensus of the early church, which the Orthodox stubbornly keep following.”
There are so many things wrong with the answer it is difficult to know where to begin.
Her language leaves out the Holy Spirit as a guide to the truth. Truth is not even mentioned or implied in what she writes. Her breezy, happy talk, style creates the impression of the Church as a man-made edifice that could just as easily be remade, if we just weren’t so stubborn.
As David points out, the type of belief Federica posits, really has nothing to do with Orthodox unity. The ontological mystery of the Holy Trinity as revealed in and communicated through the Sacraments is both the symbol and the substance of our unity. Our union is founded on Sacramental reality rather than doctrine per se. The Concilliar statements as to the nature of the Holy Trinity and the Persons of the Holy Trinity are foundational because the experience of the Church has found them reasonably accurate and therefore proper guides to understanding what is not true about God. When one combines the ability to discern what is not God with the experiential reality of the Sacraments and the community created and sustained by those Sacraments, one has the Orthodox Church
It is amazing that a person of such obvious intelligence and wit cannot understand and communicate the reality of the Church more appropriately. Her style is without substance or sobriety. Her writing is a constant disappointment to me.
I have spent the last two weeks studing in Mexico City with Canadians, Americans and Mexicans, and we have been studing Human Rights, Frienship and Solidarity between our countries. During this time, I have developed a whole new understanding of Unity. There are many different forms of Unity, there is the unity between peoples when they agree on an issue, there is the unity of persons of the same nation, and then there is the unity of those who believe the same. When it comes to Orthodoxy, and Catholisim, they both have such a profond desire for unity, and I believe have a wider practice of unity than any other group…but then why the difference of understanding? I think that it is the mentality of Roman/legalistic veiw and the Orthodox/spirtual view. Spirtually the Orthodox are very united, even if the offical documents have not been drawn up, yet the Catholics, who sometimes go overboard on the need for legal and doctrinal papers, feel as if the absolute sign of their unity is the agreement on a written piece. So these are each a different view on unity…the core belief that Christ is the center and unifcator of the church is pre-supposed, but I think that our ways of showing this truth are different. I am glad that the relations between Patriarchs and the Pope are amicable though, as I believe that it is a good step toward universal Christian Unity, because just as Christ is One, so should the Church be one.
BeckyAnn,
I disagree that the Catholic Church takes a legalistic view towards unity (or most topics). I think at the deepest level, the Catholic Church views the Eucharist and the other sacraments as the core of unity. If you read JPII’s encyclicals, I don’t think you’ll find anything that a person could reasonably label as legalistic.
Becky
When you think about solidarity with the Canadians you might want to remember that Canada does not have anything like the First Amendment and that free speech as we know it does not exist in Canada (hard to believe if you haven’t been studying the problem, but true.)
Somewhere in Scripture, we are told “Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers.” By analogy, The United States cannot be closely yoked with those who do not share our fundamental values without compromising our values. Do I favor cordial relations with our neighbors? Sure, but I also favor a change in Canadian immigration policy to stop the growth of radical Islam on our Northern Border.
As, admittedly, an outsider this doesn’t seem so very wrong to me:
?From a Roman Catholic perspective, unity is created by the institution of the church. Within that unity there can be diversity; not everyone agrees with official teaching, some very loudly.?
It may, perhaps, be an exaggeration but when you see the Latin rite Roman Catholics using the filioque and denying the sanctity of Sts. John Cassian and Photius the Great while the eastern right Greek Catholics continue omitting the filioque and venerating Sts. John Cassian and Photius the Great (not to mention all the other differences) it seems quite reasonable to conclude that submission to the Pope is more important for Roman Catholics than unity of faith is. This most certainly is not normally the case for the Orthodox (even though I have come across at least one Orthodox Christian whose attitude to the Ecumenical Patriarch is a kind of Greek version of Papism).
Of course, if you read FMG’s diversity as meaning dissent rather than theological differences in the eastern and Latin rites (which I must say I didn’t) then her conclusion would be more than an exaggeration – it’d be plain wrong. We, too, have our fair share of dissidents who’d like to remake Church teachings in a more modernist mould.
Ummm, actually I have been studing the Canadian law, an in their Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it is clearly labled as freedom of expression, maybe not the same terms, but the same understanding. Anyways, it was an analogy in our conversation on church unity.
BTW…the RC church does tend to be more legalistic, and that is not a bad thing, just more of a fact… I mean compare the RC´s cannon law (how many pages?) with the GO´s cannon law( really thin in comparison)
Note 11: Free Expression Stated in Charter Limited in Practice
The “free expression” noted in the Canadian Charter is violated daily. Canada has enacted “hate speech” laws that limit the expression of political and religious opinions which would be protected in the United States.
There are many examples of this, I will try to produce a list of citations a little later in the day or evening. I have to scoot right now.
Beck, one Example
Here is an article that discusses Canada’s approach to “free expression.” I am an attorney who is licensed in two states with twenty years of practice and I can tell you that Canadians do not enjoy the free speech protections that we do under our First Amendment.
Anyway, here is the first of several articles you might consider as you study Candad
http://www.westernstandard.ca/website/index.cfm?page=article&article_id=96
Free Speech Issues:
Becky, if you are interested in free speech issues you might want to look into the following:
ITALY:
Orianni Fallaci is being tried in a criminal proceeding for writing a book about Islam which a local Muslim complainant considers insulting. Ms. Fallaci lives in New York and will not travel to Italy to defend herself, but the proceeding will go on. Ms. Fallaci will probably not be able to return to Italy without fear of arrest. The First Amendment would be a complete defense in the United States which would not even entertain such a criminal action.
AUSTRALIA: Two Christian ministers are now in jail for making speechs and writing articles that a local Muslim found offensive. Again, the First Amendment of the United States would make this impossible.
U.K. The British Parliament just passed legislation that effectively makes it a crime to say something derogatory about Islam. For instance if I were to say “Islam is a imperialistic, totalitarian political system created by a pedophile warlord” I would probably be arrested in the U.K. In the United States I would be protected by the First Amendment
More Free Speech References
If you want to learn more about free speech issues in the United States here are a few good links:
Free Speech: The Basics
http://www.thefire.org/pdfs/5063_3525.pdf
Canadian Free Speech Strikes Again
Here is a link to a report that a man was penalized for expressiving opposition to gay marriage and support for traditional marriage by putting a sign in the window of his apartment.
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jul/05071903.html
Jim Nee just told me abt this thread — I know I’m dropping in very late. and leaving for 6 wks in England in a couple of days, so I can’t stick around. But wanted to say that, yes, the prob was it being a secular publication, and so I couldn’t say what I wanted to, in sevral respects. EG, I wanted to say that the Orth church is troubled by “nominalism,” and the editor took that out bec she said readers would not know what the word means.
I do, of course, believe that the unity of faith we have in Orthodoxy is bec we are all participating in a common mind, the mind of Christ. In fact I thought that was the most important paragraph in the piece, but its odd, no one comments on it. The Catholics are always saying to us, “don’t you believe we shd all be one? Christ said, ‘that they all may be one.’ The pope titled his document ‘ut unum sint.’ What’s the matter, don’t you want to obey Christ?” etc. So I took off from there: “That they all may be one” and finish the quote,”as we are one.” The union of the Father and Son is not held together by an outside force, by membership in a family or an institution. Its intrinsic.
When i was going over this iwth the editor she started protesting: “That’s the Orthdox interpretation of that passage!” and “You’re trying to make it sound like the Orthodox are right!” I noted that I *did* have an opinion, and it was supposed to be an opinion piece. She relented, as long as we clearly labeled the whole paragraph: “Orthodox take their cue from…” As if that’s an idiosyncratic reading.
WEll, when you start with the assertion that we are actually entering the mind of Christ — it’s tautological that this is an extraordinary work of the Holy Spirit. And it is accomplished by the sacraments. So I certainly didn’t deny those things, in fact I assumed them. There just wasn’t room to say everything — very tight wordcount limit. And the editor would have been even more incensed by my saying explicitly “we are united because the Holy Spirit unites us, we are united by the sacraments,” bec obviously Catholics wd say the same. For that reason, nobody but Orthodox would find it a useful point.
I was able to write more responses to questions at the Amy Welborn blog, “Open Door,” http://amywelborn.typepad.com/openbook/2005/07/unity.html#comment-7371746
best, F
Welcome Presbytera Frederica. It’s great to have you in the neighborhood!
RE: #17, so much for freedom of speech. Based on the comments on this blog and my own personal experience, few Roman Catholics would say that the sacraments were the prinicpal of unity within the RCC.
Personally, I think it is better to not say anything if the constraints are such that one is unable to really state the truth. It sounds to me that the editor wanted the Presbrytera to write a piece that endorsed unity without reservations or agreed that unity really exisited already.
I can sympathize with FM-G and think that overall, given the constraints, her article works. Remember too that it was an editorial, not a theological treatise. I’d cut her a bit more slack.
I’ve run into editorial constraints before too. In some articles I needed to omit sections because they would take a paragraph to explain that would be better used explaining something else. The reader of course does not know how you think about the omitted points, and sometimes critiques your article with other points you may have made given the space. Most editors allow you around only 800 words, which is not much.
One idea I would quibble with is the notion of “the mind of Christ” The dynamic cannot be divorced from the entire scriptural passage which defines it as service (servanthood) to the neighbor. This necessary moral dimension, this necessary association with active obedience to two primary commandments to love God and neighbor, is lost if the sacraments are seen as the sole ground of the dynamic. As it reads, it appears that partaking of the sacraments alone accomplishes this, which in not correct, IMO. It may be, however, that FM-G presupposes this and was, again, constrained by the space limits of the piece.
As Orthodox Christians, the idea of “Unity” is a crucial issue. FMG tried to flesh out the present differences between Orthodox and Catholics at present. But I wonder whether this comparison/contrastapproach is what we should be concerned with.
Many years ago, Karl Barth, one of my theological heroes, wrote pessimistically that there would be no unity between the Catholic Church and Protestantism be ever be achieved prior to the Parousia. I am quite sure many Orthodox would agree with this in regard to Orthodoxy and R. Church.
I do not share Barth’s pessimism. In the quest for unity, it is unlikely that the Orthodox Churches would accept any sort of unity with the RC as it presently structured, i.e., the Papacy. On the other hand, the structural disorganization of Orthodoxy–i.e., the conflictual relationships among the various Patriarchates, the confusing structures in North America, and the like, make it an unlike source of unity as well.
I think the important questions are, “What Church do we hope for?” “What model of the Church best serves the mission of the Church in the 3rd millenium?” As it stands, I do not see anything appealing and encouraging. “What is the Church? What does it do for us? How does the Church fulfill its Christ’s mandated mission to make disciples among all of the nations?”
It seems to me that we are living in the time of the ruins of Christendom–Post Constantine. Arguably when Constatine declared the Church to be the official religion of the empire, all the troubles began.
Something to think about. I enjoy reading all the postings.
George
Some changes cannot happen overnight but may require a long series of changes that lead to gradual improvement and take a long time to unfold. Historical events that inflamed relations may only gradually recede from memory. Political, cultural or geographic divisions between nations may crumble and nations may realign themselves into new blocs with new common interests over a span of decades. A “man of history” whose bold attempts at reconciliation soften old attitudes and open up new possibilities may arise only every century.
I’ve been reading some history of the Ottoman centuries, and its worth remembering that relations between Orthodoxy and Catholicism were once so bad that Orthodox Patriarchs regularly remarked, “Better the turban of the Sultan that the mitre of the Pope”. Until recently, Orthodox prelates regularly denounced Roman Catholicism, and the Pope was not welcome in many Orthodox lands. In his influential book, “The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order”, written in 1993, historian Samuel P. Huntington found a cultural fault line dividing Orthodox Christianity from the rest of the West. “As the ideological division of Europe has disappeared, the cultural division of Europe between Western Christianity, on the one hand, and Orthodox Christianity and Islam, on the other, has reemerged. ” Huntington wrote. http://www.alamut.com/subj/economics/misc/clash.html
We should be encouraged then that relations between Orthodoxy and Catholicism have warmed as much as they have in the last ten years, with much credit due to Pope John Paul II, who began the neccesary trust-building steps. Let the dialogue continue. We should build on the work that Pope John Paul II started. Orthodox Christians should respond positively to Pope Benedict’s overtures, and resolve to work with the Catholic Church to find common areas of theological agreement, realizing of course that many hurdles of a more administyrative nature remain.
Unity among the the Churches may not be something that can be accomplished in several large leaps, but may require a very long series of small steps over a long period of time. Just because the road before us is long doesn’t mean we aren’t making progress, as long as we continue moving in the right direction.
Quite by accident, I recently came across an interesting book discussing the very issues of Unity (within the Orthodox context) and the issue of “Reunion” with the RCs.
The book is called “The Truth: What every Roman Catholic should know about the Orthodox Church” written by Clark Carlton.
The book is available from Regina Orthodox Press: http://www.reginaorthodoxpress.com/
I found the book quite insightful and interesting and in some instances challenging. I think the book provides a useful backdrop to any discussion concerning reunion with the RCs. I think that both Orthodox and RCs alike will benefit from reading Mr Carlton’s commentary.
Kind Regards,
George.
I think there is one very positive item mentioned in this thread regarding unity.
In # ,Dean suggested that the sacraments are the source of unity for the Orthodox. The sacraments (especially Communion) are also considered the source of unity for the Catholic Church. If the sacraments are the source of unity for both Churches, and both Churches share these sacraments, they will clearly be the source of any unity between the Churches.
I think this is what John Paul II may have had in mind when he described the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches as the two lungs of the Church.
One problem with this is that the Orthodox see the sharing of the sacraments as the final sign of unity, and not a means by which that unity can be achieved.
Fr. J wrote: “One problem with this is that the Orthodox see the sharing of the sacraments as the final sign of unity, and not a means by which that unity can be achieved.” This is certainly true. I wonder if one of the steps to be taken in the long road toward the restoration of unity would be to accept a plurality of ecclesial structures is valid–at least admit this in the interim, and that we must grow together in dialogue and mutual regard. Recognition of pluriform church structures may not be completely satisfatory, but it has the advantage of bringing us back to the evident pluriformity of the ancient Church.
Fr. J wrote: ?One problem with this is that the Orthodox see the sharing of the sacraments as the final sign of unity, and not a means by which that unity can be achieved.?
The Catholic understanding of a sacrament is that it is an efficacious sign. That it is a sign that does what it represents. Do the Orthodox have a similar understanding?
The Orthodox see it as symbol but in the Greek understanding of the term. A symbol is the place where two disparate realities converge, in this case the uncreated and the created. Of course the philosophical explanation can’t explain the Eucharist with any sufficiency given that the Apostle Paul uses sacrificial language to describe it.