Unity?

In the WSJ, Frederica Mathewes-Green explains the differences between the RC and Orthodox understandings of "unity."

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.

What the Catechism of the Catholic Church says about being "one" as in "one, holy and apostolic"

815 What are these bonds of unity? Above all, charity "binds everything together in perfect harmony."²⁶⁵ But the unity of the pilgrim Church is also assured by visible bonds of communion:

- profession of one faith received from the Apostles;

-common celebration of divine worship, especially of the sacraments;

- apostolic succession through the sacrament of Holy Orders, maintaining the fraternal concord of God's family.²⁶⁶

Comments

[William Porter]

I'm very fond of Ms Mathewes-Green, who in addition to being very smart is very good at introducing Orthodoxy to Westerners (I suppose especially Americans) who were not born into the Orthodox faith. But she's just wrong about what makes for unity in the Catholic Church. There, too, the only true unity also comes from unity of belief that expresses itself in unity of worship. The Church tolerates dissent, in the sense that it lets some of its own representatives get away with an awful lot, but only someone not familiar with the Church would think that this is due to the Church being flexible about its teachings.

[Neil]

I'm confused by this column also. I think that Cardinal Kasper outlined the Catholic criteria for unity in his 2003 lecture "May They All Be One? But how? A Vision of Christian Unity for the Next Generation." He clearly states, "There are visible criteria for unity: unity in the same faith, unity in the same sacraments and unity in church ministry, i.e. in episcopal ministry, in apostolic succession." This is not merely an mechanical matter of (in Matthewes-Green's words) "everyone salutes the flag."

Cardinal Kasper also outlined the legitimate grounds for diversity ("the Spirit dispenses his gifts in great variety and richness [cf. 1 Cor 12, 4 ff]"):

"To confess the same faith does not necessarily mean to confess the same credal formula. One of the most significant progresses of the ecumenical dialogue in the last decades was made with the Old oriental churches, which separated as far back as the 5th century because they could not accept the dogma of the 4th Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (451), namely Jesus Christ, two natures in one person (hypostasis). With Saint Cyrill of Alexandria they confess the one nature (one physis) of the Logos made flesh. Hence, through the centuries they were known as monophysists. It has only been in recent times that we have discovered that the crucial aspect is not a question of confessing a different faith, but the use of a different philosophical terminology in order to express the faith which in substance is the same as ours. They have a different understanding of the terms nature and person (hypostasis). So we did not impose our formulas on them, and in formal agreements between the Pope and the respective Patriarchs, we acknowledged our unity in faith, a unity in a pluriformity of expressions."

"... Nor is uniformity required in the sacramental dimension of the Church either. It is well known that sacramental life can be expressed through different rites, and that in East and West these rites are indeed quite different. But the difference can go even deeper. The Assyrian Church, which separated in the 4th century after the third Ecumenical Council of Ephesus (381) and which for a long time was accused of being Nestorian, uses as anaphora (eucharistic prayer), the anaphora of Adai and Mari, without the words of institution in a narrative form. It is probably the oldest anaphora we know, going back to the second century and composed in the Aramaic language, the language of Jesus himself. This Church, which possesses an undoubtedly valid episcopate, confesses the same eucharistic faith we confess. It is unimaginable and unthinkable that she has celebrated throughout the centuries a Eucharist that is invalid. Thus two years ago the validity of this anaphora was officially acknowledged by the Catholic Church."

Surely this is what Benedict XVI means by "respect for the multiform fullness of the Church," not some sort of doctrinal and liturgical anarchy covered up by the ecclesiastical equivalent of nationalism.

Furthermore, Matthewes-Green portrays the Catholic Church as a "centralized, global institution" - "a big bureaucracy" - and speaks of "Rome's magisterium." This machinery is obviously supposed to be in contrast with Orthodoxy's organicism. But Vatican II meant to recover a conception of the Church as a communion (not merely an institution), in which the bishops are members of an episcopal college that succeeds the apostolic college, all bound together with one another for common mission in communion and solidarity with (and under) the bishop of Rome. The Synod of Bishops, the Council hoped, "as it will be representative of the whole Catholic episcopate, will bear testimony to the participation of all bishops in hierarchical communion in the care of the universal Church" (Christus Dominus). Catholicism is not the matter of an "institution" held apart in splendid Roman isolation from the seemingly random prayers, beliefs, and discernment of the particular Churches.

In First Things, David Hart wrote that "As unfair as it may seem, to Orthodox Christians it often appears as if, from the Catholic side, so long as the pope’s supremacy is acknowledged, all else is irrelevant ornament." It is a good thing that we note this appearance, but it should be contrasted to authentic Catholicism as well as Orthodoxy.

Thanks.

Neil

[Jim]

Just imagine: a Church held together by a unity of beliefs, rather than by threats of excommunication, separation from the sacraments and being labeled a heretic. Of course, the Orthodox don't have a pat answer for virtually every conceivable question and they do seem unusually focused on the core beliefs of Christianity. And they seem to be willing to admit that some things are just mysteries and not subject to detailed analysis. On the other hand, they don't put too much stock in piling up theological degrees and writing meaningless and sterile Ph.D./S.T.D. theses about theological minutiae.

[Jeff]

Yes, I agree with the first two commenters that something is terribly wrong!

Tolerance of dissent is different from acceptance of dissent. How much dissent is tolerated today because of pragmatic judgments about the difficulty of discipline when the undisciplined are so very many and how much is tolerated because of a new, more charitable dispensation in the Church is an open question.

But tolerated or not, "dissent" on de fide questions makes puts one out of the Church as a matter of faith. One may have the appearance of "unity" with one's brethren, but one is no longer inside the Church.

[francis]

I admire Mrs. Mathewes-Green greatly, but she's just flat wrong on this instance. I think she has taken the American media-driven perception of Catholicism too seriously. Authentic Catholicism means one Lord, one faith, one baptism. For purposes of bringing people to repentence, the Church might allow dissent, but she doesn't embrace it.

Also, I think Mrs. Mathewes-Green should also not be so quick to look outside her own communion in casting stones. There are prominent Orthodox in this country (Sen. Paul Sarbannes and George Stephanopolis to name two) who dissent greatly from Orthodox teaching (Sarbannes is 100% pro-abortion), and they have both been honored by Orthodox leaders. Does that mean that the Orthodox aren't united by "one faith"?

[al]

CCL Can. 751 "Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."

CCC 2089 "Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."11

[MrsDarwin]

I don't see how she comes up with there being less dissent among the Orthodox. Perhaps it's less obvious because it doesn't stand in contast to a institution with clealry defined teaching authority. Or perhaps, like many Catholics, she figures that the dissenting and non-practicing Orthodox aren't really part of the Church and so don't count.

It does see clear, though, that without a central institution to push to change, Orthodox dissenters don't work up the kind of high provile that the Kungs or McBrians of Catholicism have. They just quietly do their own thing.

[WRY]

Does she mean unity as in, how the Orthodox are united on whether one can use artificial contraception? Well, they're not united at all: a rear guard, clearly on the defensive, holds to the traditional teaching that they share with Catholics. The viewpoint of the mainstream seems closer to typical Protestant (or dissident Cathiolic) thinking.
Or, how about unity on the calendar? You have some Orthodox groups that are new calendar, some old calendar - each at each other's throats sometimes on the issue.
Let's not even talk about Ukraine, where three (or is it four this week) jurisdictions each claim to be the church.
But no, maybe its unity on the very subject of ecumenism. You should see what the anti-ecumenical Orthodox say about their brothers in faith on that subject.
This is snarky, but sometimes it seems that what really matters to the Greek Orthodox church is unity on Greek political issues.
But really, I thought Mathewes-Green had more sense than to write what she did. Anyone remotely familiar with Catholic ecumenical thought knows that what the Catholic Church seeks is unity of belief. Nothing less. It sounds like M-G is simply repeating some of those anti-Catholic canards you find in their polemical writers' books.

[Rod Dreher]

I hope Frederica will come in to speak for herself, but I can say from personal conversations with her over the years that she is quite concerned with the de facto chaos that prevails in the RCC. At my parish, and I bet at yours too, there is literally no telling what the folks in the pews next to you really believe, except that they should be at mass today. In America today, "profession of one faith" is meaningless, because we Catholics assert the right to submit the teachings of the faith to our own judgment, not submit ourselves to it. If I were Orthodox, that would unnerve me.

I am not Orthodox, of course, so I don't know whether there's anything to this, but it seems to me that even though there must be plenty of Orthodox dissenters, I don't see them agitating to change the teaching of the Church, or to lead other Orthodox into believing that whatever dissenting view they've made their hobbyhorse is doctrinally valid.

It also seems to me the deeper point Frederica was making is that unity of the sort sought by John Paul is simply not possible because the Orthodox believe some pretty fundamentally different things. It's simply not possible to reconcile the Catholic view of the papacy with the Orthodox view. And in the West, we've made so many doctrinal changes and adjustments over the past millenium that if the Orthodox were to accept them, they'd not be Orthodox anymore. I think the legitimate and (to my mind) insurmountable obstacles to reunion are often obscured by the obnoxious cussedness of some Orthodox polemicists. Nevertheless, even if you take away the reflexive anti-Roman hostility of these people and replace it with big smiles and warm hugs, the problems are still real.

[tcreek]

A big obstacle to unity between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches is the disunity of the Orthodox.

". . .the church appears to be a jumble of national and ethnic bodies." - Ms Mathewes-Green

Not only "appears" to be.

[Maureen]

Well, I'm certainly concerned about what the people in the pew next to me actually believe. But OTOH, this is not exactly a new situation in either the history of the Church or of God's people Israel. There's a perpetual cycle (both in individuals and historical events) of falling away into ignorance and/or sin, being called back/taught the truth, and then not just going back but going further toward God. There's not a heckuva lot of difference between the priests gathering the people and reading them the law, resulting in sackcloth and ashes galore, and the Cure of Ars going into his neglected and feralized French village with a strong pair of knees and hope. And the world east of Constantinople has not been free of this cycle. Heck, it keeps happening in the history of Mount Athos, even.

If unity of faith was all this writer thought was important, she would be teaching CCD down at her local Catholic parish instead of throwing in her digs. So clearly she believes in unity of praxis also -- and as that one Air Force general said, "We are in violent agreement." :)

[Brian Visaggio]

On the Anaphora of Ss Addai and Mari, how on earth does it not have the words of institution in a narrative form?

http://www.churchdocs.org/liturgy/euchprayers/addaimari.html

The Anamnesis
WHEN HE, the sinless one, prepared to accept death for us sinners, He took bread into His holy hands and when He had given thanks, He † blessed † and consecrated † and broke it, giving it to His holy apostles, saying:
Sabu, akolu, hanau paghri.
Take, eat, this is My Body; which is broken for you and for the many, given for the remission of sins and for everlasting life.
Amen.
LIKEWISE He also took the cup and when He had given thanks, He † blessed † consecrated † and gave it to His holy apostles, saying:
Sabu, eshthu meneh kolkhon, hanau demi.
Take, drink it all of you, this is My Blood; which is shed for you and for the many, given for the remission of sins and for everlasting life.
Amen.

[Liam]

Brian

I think that version reflects an adaptation for the Chaldean church that restored communion with Rome some time ago.

[tmatt]

Is there a united Roman Catholic faith in North America?

Sorry, I have never seen it as a reporter or as a seeker. As a convert to Orthdooxy -- and close friend of Frederica, too, I confess -- I think there needs to be a bit more candor here about the reality of what Roman doctrine and discipline looks like on the ground and the direction is appears to be going.

Here is the big question: As conservative Roman Catholics, how many of you have your local parish ON YOUR SIDE as you raise your children in the faith? On your side in teaching and supporting the faith in a winsome manner? Or, at the very least, your local parish and its leaders are not undercutting the teachings of the Church on a weekly basis?

That was the question for me, when I looked at Rome. I am a parent.

Well, that and my profound disagreement with Vatican II's teachings on other world religions. And, yes, I ran some of my questions past some pretty good Catholic representatives, people with last names like Chaput, Neuhaus and Kreeft.

But one final point on the issue at hand:

Dreher: It's simply not possible to reconcile the Catholic view of the papacy with the Orthodox view.

Nor with the view of some popes before the schism. Correct?

Oh, one quip: There was one other major reason I could not covert to Rome and sincerely and joyfully converted to Orthodoxy. I love glorious choral music and ancient liturgy.

[Brian]

tmatt, hey, longtime fan of your work over on getreligion.org.

Mind telling Frederica how much I admire her? Ive read a good bit of what she has archived on beliefnet, and I dig it, yes, how I dig it!

[scotch meg]

I have met and been very impressed by Ms. Mathewes-Green. That said, I think one reason (if it is true) that the Orthodox are more united in faith is that dissidents just leave for friendlier territory. I am thinking of a friend who married a priest; priest abandoned her and moved to the Episcopal church because he knew the Orthodox wouldn't accept his next marriage. Unity of faith preserved, but at what cost?

[Brian Visaggio]

Also, tmatt, I don't really think it's fair to compare the situation of churches who have spent centuries under seige in the Reformation and Englightenment countries with that of the Orthodox, who haven't had the same gradual secularization to deal with. It comes as no surprise that so many of these churches have collapsed.

Here's to Africa.

[Andrew]

AN ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN RESPONDS

As a life-long Orthodox Christian, I am disappointed in Frederica's article. It glosses over if not ignores the fact that there is dissent in Orthodox circles. From my own experience, even on a parish level one cannot honestly say that Orthodox Christian believe the same things. Dissent is alive and well in the Orthodox Church. We have people who question everything from the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist to when human life begins.

This article is a symptom "Define Orthodoxy by beating up the West" syndrome that plagues the many Orthodox Christians. I wonder how this article would hold up to a reading of John Paul II's encyclical "Et Unum Sint"

The article is also a white flag of surrender to the problem of multiple jurisdictions and one Orthodox Church in America. There are administrative Canons which clearly show that real unity also is lived out practically on a unified basis on the local and diocesan level. There are real implications and responsibilities to believing the same things that this article ignores.

We Orthodox call ourselves conciliar yet at no time in history has it been easier to convene and Ecumenical Council yet the Church cannot find the humility to come together. We call ourselves united but how many countries have multiple and overlapping Orthodox Jurisdictions? Obviously we are not one big happy family. We are sometimes a very selfish family. To ingnore this reality only causes harm to people and the Body of Christ.

Orthodoxy in America and elsewhere will never thrive unless Orthodox Christians have the humility to live a real and responsible unity that is more than a nostalgia for things Eastern and things ancient.

[c matt]

Just imagine: a Church held together by a unity of beliefs, rather than by threats of excommunication, separation from the sacraments and being labeled a heretic.

Of course, its hard to maintain unity of belief if you allow everyone to believe whatever the heck they want without ex-communicating (which, technically, is a self-imposed thing), separation of the sacraments (if you want them to really mean anything) and identifying heretics and their heresies (c'mon, you've got to be kidding - if you can't label someone who holds heretical beliefs a heretic, what's the point of having any beliefs?). You are not describing unity; you are describing Unitarianism.

[WRY]

tmatt,
Disunity in the pew is irrelevant to whether the Orthodox and Catholics could unite. If the leading hierarchs of each church could see a way to unity beyond our current divisions, then we would have unity.
To answer yours questions: My kid is learning his faith at Catholic school. My parish is on my side. I sense no undercutting of the faith. But when I approached a member of the local Orthodox church to suggest that we do some things together, he said his people weren't ready for that: they were too ill-educated in their faith and would be vulnerable in the encounter.
And oh, if you're going to talk about pre-schism popes, we need to bring in those ancient Christian writers who insisted that all the churches had to agree with Rome. Just to be fair!

[Ronny]

It seems to me that every time I read something that Mathewes-Green thinks is distinctive about Orthodoxy from Roman Catholicism, it turns out that anyone paying attention will find that supposedly distinctive feature in the latter as well. I have noticed this phenomenon in other Orthodox writers as well. I suspect that part of it is due to the openness of Roman Catholicism to Orthodoxy in contrast to Orthodoxy's fear of all things Western.

[Brian Visaggio]

These seems to be devolving into nipping at each other's ankles.

[WRY]

Brian,
Let's ask whether the Orthodox and Catholics agree on Harry Potter.
;-)

[c matt]

I guess I am missing FMG's point. That b/c we have so many dissenters in our fold, we have no unity in belief and doctrine? I suppose she sees that as a bad thing, which I agree. But what should be the solution - kick all dissenters out? But the fact we have dissenters (and can identify them pretty readily) seems to prove we have a unity of doctrine and teaching, even if all members don't practice/believe it. How can you be a dissenter if there is no doctrine from which you are dissenting? Seems to me that unity of doctrine is more fundamental to unity - if you don't know what you are supposed to believe/follow (or if a lot of variation is allowed) how can you ever hope to get to a unity in practice?

[Brian Visaggio]

Haha!

Or maybe, I dunno, Star Wars?

Revenge of the Sith? Thumbs up? Thumbs down?

[tmatt]

Also, tmatt, I don't really think it's fair to compare the situation of churches who have spent centuries under seige in the Reformation and Englightenment countries with that of the Orthodox, who haven't had the same gradual secularization to deal with.

***

Oh, right. Orthodoxy has had a really easy time of it in the Middle East and, in terms of secularism, in the Soviet empire. No intense pressures or bloodshed there. Nope.

Or, in effect, are you saying that oppression of plastic, as in charge cards, is tougher than an oppression of steel?

[Todd]

Some commenters seem to be confusing unity with uniformity. Also, one person's essential of faith is in reality, just a matter of prudence. I can see how many St Bloggers would be nervous (and are!) in a Church that practices charity in the non-essentials.

And there is also the uniquely Western busybodyism echoed above: "Dissenters are sitting next to me, contaminating my Sunday pew. Either its obvious or it's not obvious; I'm not sure."

Get over yourselves, please. RC's, especially conservative RC's have problems with the speck/plank thing. We have more than a thing or two to learn from the Orthodox. It would be good to pay more attention to what Mathewes-Green says, especially in matters that touch upon uniformity.

[Sr. Lorraine]

I've read a lot of great things by Frederica, but in this case I was surprised that she reduced the Catholic idea of unity to allegiance to an institution. It's a lot more than that. The basic unity is a unity of faith. If a person departs from that by willfully refusing to believe an essential truth of the Catholic faith, that person has severed himself from the Church's unity of faith. That's precisely the problem today. Many dissenters in fact no longer accept the Catholic faith. By choosing to remain in the institution--in some cases to try and change it--they are causing great confusion and misleading others.

[Richard]

Hello Jim,

Just imagine: a Church held together by a unity of beliefs, rather than by threats of excommunication, separation from the sacraments and being labeled a heretic.

For a moment there I thought you were talking about Orthodox churches for most of their history.

Hello Rod,

In America today, "profession of one faith" is meaningless, because we Catholics assert the right to submit the teachings of the faith to our own judgment, not submit ourselves to it. If I were Orthodox, that would unnerve me.

It certainly unnerved Cardinal Newman when he saw itin the Protestants of his day (cf. "Faith and Private Judgment").

I think there *are* real obstacles to reunion but perhaps not insurmountable. The key may be the distinction once observed by Pope Benedict, that is of the Pope as Patriarch of the West versus his role as Supreme Pontiff. The Eastern patriarchies would nott necessarily need to obserrve all the practices of the Western Patriarchy, not recognize the Pope's authority in quite the same way.

From there remains ample ground that must still be traveled. But it's the terrain I'd choose to explore in undertaking ecumenical dialogue with the East.

[Rod Dreher]

Tmatt: Sorry, I have never seen it as a reporter or as a seeker. As a convert to Orthdooxy -- and close friend of Frederica, too, I confess -- I think there needs to be a bit more candor here about the reality of what Roman doctrine and discipline looks like on the ground and the direction is appears to be going.

Here is the big question: As conservative Roman Catholics, how many of you have your local parish ON YOUR SIDE as you raise your children in the faith? On your side in teaching and supporting the faith in a winsome manner? Or, at the very least, your local parish and its leaders are not undercutting the teachings of the Church on a weekly basis?

Precisely. Again, I can't speak for the Orthodox experience, but TMatt's question goes back to a question I posted on a thread yesterday: how many of us Catholics see our priests, in general, as true spiritual fathers, holy men we can trust to provide authentic guidance on spiritual and moral matters? My experience of the Catholic Church is that the reigning mentality is one of maintaining a corporate unity at all costs, which means, bottom line, a functional indifferentism.

Some history: about a decade ago, when TMatt was agonizing over whether to take his family into Catholicism or Orthodoxy, he and I went round and round and round over this question. He kept telling me that he honestly feared raising his kids in Catholicism, given what he'd seen on the ground covering the Church. I kept (wrongly) insisting that he was getting hung up on child sex abuse (mind you, this was 1995, 1996), and ignoring the key issue, which was one of authority: if the Roman case is the correct one, then he had an obligation to be Catholic, no matter what. Obviously, I didn't win that argument.

Now that I have kids of my own to worry about, I've had to apologize to Terry for not understanding what he was really worried about, which was not child sex abuse but whether or not he could find safe harbor for his family within the Catholic Church in America. That is, could he count on this Church to be faithful to its teachings not in theory or in the abstract, but at the level where his family would meet the Church: at the parish? The point of Christianity is not to be Catholic, or Orthodox, or Presbyterian; the point is to be sanctified in Christ. I don't think that at the final judgment, God is going to ask us if we had membership in the right church; He is going to ask us if we knew and loved His Son, and allowed ourselves to be sanctified by that relationship. This is what I, as a relatively new Catholic, didn't really grasp a decade ago. Nor did I, then unmarried, understand how difficult it would be to raise Catholic children without the help of a community of believers, led by a trustworthy spiritual father.

I get that now.

I'm afraid I've taken this thread too far afield from Frederica's article, so please feel free to ignore this and concentrate on her essay. I do wish, though, that we could keep our Catholic knees from jerking defensively as we discuss it. This is a fascinating topic, and our understanding is not advanced by "nipping at each other's ankles."

One more thing. WRY writes: Disunity in the pew is irrelevant to whether the Orthodox and Catholics could unite. If the leading hierarchs of each church could see a way to unity beyond our current divisions, then we would have unity.

One of Frederica's points is precisely that disunity in the pews is a major obstacle to unity, at least from the Orthodox perspective. It doesn't appear to be an obstacle from the Catholic perspective because we've grown accustomed to the fact that only a minority of Catholics give a rat's patoot about small-o orthodoxy among the Roman Catholic faithful. For us, corporate unity seems to be what matters, and unity in belief remains a fond but unrealizable ideal.

[Mark Adams]

TMatt: in terms of secularism, in the Soviet empire

Yes. And how did Orthodoxy fare under those conditions? Are you proud of their performance?

Honestly this is ridicules. FMG compares an ideal Orthodoxy with Roman Catholicism on the ground. Reverse the comparison and Orthodoxy looks just as bad.

FMG: The Orthodox respond: But faith must be organic. If you have to force people to it, you've already lost the battle; that wouldn't be unity at all.

Um, what? So what was the purpose of all those early Church Councils declaring certain people heretics? Was the battle already lost at that point?

FMG What's the source of this common faith? The consensus of the early church, which the Orthodox stubbornly keep following.

Honestly, I haven't heard a more question begging assertion since I heard a Presbyterian pastor say that one should believe in Calvinism because it's what the Bible teaches.

[Rod Dreher]

TMatt: Oh, right. Orthodoxy has had a really easy time of it in the Middle East and, in terms of secularism, in the Soviet empire. No intense pressures or bloodshed there. Nope.

The Orthodox I've met are far less sanguine and starry-eyed about Islam than are Catholics. The Eastern Church suffered the most from the clash with Islam, and still does. Read Bat Ye'or on the subject.

Sr. Lorraine: I've read a lot of great things by Frederica, but in this case I was surprised that she reduced the Catholic idea of unity to allegiance to an institution. It's a lot more than that. The basic unity is a unity of faith. If a person departs from that by willfully refusing to believe an essential truth of the Catholic faith, that person has severed himself from the Church's unity of faith. That's precisely the problem today. Many dissenters in fact no longer accept the Catholic faith. By choosing to remain in the institution--in some cases to try and change it--they are causing great confusion and misleading others.

Yes, but that's precisely the point! If a Catholic separates himself from the unity in faith, there is precisely no penalty incurred. Worse, given the state of the Church today, his career may even be advanced. When I lived in the Archdiocese of Miami 10 years ago, I couldn't find any parish to teach me NFP in preparation for my marriage. I found a CCL training couple, who told me that they'd been barred from even making presentations in Pre-Cana programs in area parishes. In a Dallas suburb, one orthodox Catholic woman wanted to get involved in her parish's RCIA, and was told that she could, but she couldn't give out copies of the Catechism to catechumens. The RCIA directors eventually relented and agreed to let her distribute the Catechism, but only if she promised not to present it as in any way authoritative.

One of the most attractive things to me about Catholicism from the outside was the unity of faith in doctrine. But it's mostly untrue, on the ground. I don't think any of us can expect every Catholic in reality to always and everywhere believe precisely the same thing. But we should not accept that it's no big deal if we don't. That, I'm afraid, is the situation on the ground: functional indifferentism.

[reluctant penitent]

Apart from Orthodox parishes of intellectual converts, my experience has been that the average Orthodox believer practices Orthodoxy as a culture rather than a belief system. The state of the Orthodox world reminds me of the state of Catholicism in some Latin American villages--lots of attention to ritualistic piety, very little attention to the substance of the faith. That's my experience, at any rate.

Greece's abortion rate is among the highest in Europe. It can't just be Greek Communists and Catholics having abortions. Yet the Greek Orthodox Church opposes abortion. Doesn't that suggest to you that at least some Greek Orthodox Christians dissent from their Church's teaching on abortion?

[Mark Adams]

Rod, Why don't you become Orthodox? How important do you think the papacy is? I understand that prudence says one shouldn't change one's children's religion lightly but if Catholicism remains such a hostile place to raise your children wouldn't it be in their best interests to change ecclesial affiliations?

[Rod Dreher]

RP: Apart from Orthodox parishes of intellectual converts, my experience has been that the average Orthodox believer practices Orthodoxy as a culture rather than a belief system. The state of the Orthodox world reminds me of the state of Catholicism in some Latin American villages--lots of attention to ritualistic piety, very little attention to the substance of the faith. That's my experience, at any rate.

You know, Fr. Alexander Schmemann, the great Orthodox priest and theologian, lamented the same thing in his diaries (which Fr. Neuhaus warmly reviews here). I loved the Schmemann journals, not only because he was clearly a holy priest and a fascinating thinker, but because they are a reminder not to idealize any Church. Churches are made of human beings, and as Fr. Greeley has said, you can leave the Catholic Church if you want, but understand that whatever Church you join becomes less perfect the day you walk in the door. That said, I think it's worth considering whether men and women who really do want to live authentic Christian lives will find more help in doing so in the Catholic or Orthodox church. Please understand: I don't want to get into question-begging of the sort that would prompt a reply like: "You can't live an authentic Christian life outside of the Catholic Church!" (or "outside of the Orthodox Church" if you're Orthodox). The point I'm trying to make is gotten at by something an Orthodox convert told me recently (and I paraphrase): "You'll find lots of frozen-chosen, tribe-at-prayer deadness in Orthodox parishes, but a convert will generally find that the priest really does care about the content of the faith, and really responds when converts walk through the door and want to know about it."

Is that true in the Catholic Church? In my experience, priests are more likely to see converts as pains in the rear, ardent papalists who are going to upset his apple cart by going on about doctrine and traditional Catholic piety, and not getting with the post-conciliar program.

[Tom C]

I have tremendous respect for the Orthodox Church, and there are times when I wonder if I should have crossed the Bosporus rather than the Tiber. But FMG’s rosy picture of the Orthodox Church just doesn’t stand up to reality, and most Orthodox I know will candidly admit it.

The Orthodox have there own problems with heresy, and as the American Orthodox Church grows (and I believe it will), it too will face the same problems experienced by the Catholic Church in the U.S. So far, the OCA is doing a poor job resisting American modernism. Just take a look at the official Q&A on birth control posted on the OCA’s website:

“QUESTION: What about such very specific issues as . . . birth control and abortion? What do you have to say about such things?

ANSWER:

. . .

The control of the conception of a child by any means is also condemned by the Church if it means the lack of fulfillment in the family, the hatred of children, the fear of responsibility, the desire for sexual pleasure as purely fleshly, lustful satisfaction, etc.

Again, however, married people practicing birth control are not necessarily deprived of Holy Communion, if in conscience before God and with the blessing of their spiritual father, they are convinced that their motives are not entirely unworthy. . . .”

http://www.oca.org/QA.asp?ID=147&SID=3

Total squish. And plenty of Orthodox back East are mad as hell about it. How are they going to deal with this stuff? You know how many Ecumenical Councils the Orthodox have held since the Schism? Zero.

[Elizabeth]

I agree with Fredrica, and also have found that the idea that one is Catholic and a member of the Church in this world because of baptism and membership, regardless of current state of soul or belief, is one of the things that distinguishes Catholicism from Protestant "True Believers Only" Churches. The Catholic Church is a family; once your born into it through baptism you're always a part of it, whether you like it or not, and the Church always has an interest in your soul, ESPECIALLY if you are falling away. A Parish is made up of every baptised person within its boundries, and not just of people who have a common level of devotion or liturgical taste, and I think it is a tragedy when parishes, and Catholics in general, become divided here on earth along the lines of "Apparently Lukewarm Catholics" and "Super-Catholic true believers who homeschool and don't want to be next to the lukewarm Catholics in the pew". A Catholic is a Catholic and different people are at different stages of their conversion. Jesus said that the Church on earth would included chaff among the wheat, and that it was GOD'S job to seperate the two in the next life, not our job to determine who is a "Real Catholic" in this life. We really don't know the state of a person's soul...I have known a lot of people who aren't always super-agressive and public about their faith who were suprisingly devout or evangelized quietly at suprising times, and I've known people who were agressively and pubicly "True Believers" who were covering up a shallow faith with big talk and show. Also, the Church is a hospital for sinners, and so who is it going to be most appropriately filled with? The Spiritually Sick. You don't kick a person out of hospital when they get too ill...you try to keep them there and get them to take their medicine. I think that the mentality of a lot of Catholics today that we need to get rid of all of those "Lukewarm Catholics" and shrink the Church down to the hardcore believers, or at least isolate hardcore believers into little homeschool communities, is a very sad, and un-Catholic, attitude. A lot of people are struggling to live their faith in the world and still questioning some of the teachings, especially those which have been so poorly explained, and rather than getting rid of people and driving them away, it would be better to gently shepherd them along with decent catechesis and pastoral practice and let God do the seperating himself.

[Rod Dreher]

Mark Adams: Rod, Why don't you become Orthodox? How important do you think the papacy is? I understand that prudence says one shouldn't change one's children's religion lightly but if Catholicism remains such a hostile place to raise your children wouldn't it be in their best interests to change ecclesial affiliations?

I don't become Orthodox because I don't believe in Orthodoxy. I'm a Catholic. But Mark, you hit right on why I'm so caught up in these questions, because my family and I are living through a difficult time now with regard to our spiritual and church life, and that's why I follow these discussions with eagerness. They don't seem so abstract to me anymore. I really couldn't care less about Orthodox bitching about what Rome supposedly did, or Catholic bitching about the obstreperous Orthodox. I'd love to see a frank but charitable discussion of the real issues raised by Frederica's article. This stuff matters to me personally now in a way that it didn't five years ago.

[Ronny]

Let's ask whether the Orthodox and Catholics agree on Harry Potter.
;-)

Very naughty, WRY -- no more computer you today!

[Rod Dreher]

Elizabeth: A lot of people are struggling to live their faith in the world and still questioning some of the teachings, especially those which have been so poorly explained, and rather than getting rid of people and driving them away, it would be better to gently shepherd them along with decent catechesis and pastoral practice and let God do the seperating himself.

We should clear something up: I certainly don't want to shut the door to anyone, and I doubt so-called "SuperCatholics" do either. I struggle to understand a few teachings of the Catholic Church. But what I don't do is insist that my view is just as valid as what the Church teaches. Nor do I insist that it doesn't matter what the Church teaches, and that the Church should accomodate me in my weak belief. My attitude is that even though I don't fully understand this or that doctrine, I accept it on the Church's authority, and will pray and study so that I can better share the mind of the Church. I do not demand, even in just my own mind, that doctrine be abandoned to accomodate me.

That's what unity in belief means, I think. That struggle as we might to accept certain doctrines, or to live them out in our daily lives, we accept those doctrines as true.

[mizznicole]

That said, I think it's worth considering whether men and women who really do want to live authentic Christian lives will find more help in doing so in the Catholic or Orthodox church.

I've found a tremendous resource in the Schoenstatt movement--spiritual formation, support for families, fellowship. It's taking off here in Austin. Check it out.

[Simon]

Charity, please!

Like so many other threads here, this one is in danger of becoming a slugfest between the Traditionalist/Triumphalist crowd and those who use any op-ed or news article as a mere jumping off point to rant about whatever they can't stand about the Catholic Church.

I love the Orthodox Church, its history, liturgy, spirituality and people. But I also recognize that among many of us Catholics (and some of the intellectual converts to Orthodox) there is a tendency to idealize Orthodoxy as somehow uncorrupted by modernity, dissent, institutionalism/clericalism, etc. This is hogwash.

The way the faith has been preserved within Orthodoxy is no worse than in Catholicism (and any Catholic who demeans the way the Orthodox have endured the extreme persecutions of both Islam and Marxism is neither charitable nor informed), but it is not necessarily better, either. Tom C is correct that Orthodoxy will face the same sort of challenges Catholicism has as it grows in the West. I am not at all sure Orthodoxy is prepared for that challenge.

We have a great deal to learn from the Orthodox, and the Orthodox have a great deal to learn from us as well. Although our different understandings of authority, papal primacy, and doctrinal development are enormous obstacles to unity, I still believe the Holy Spirit will re-unite the apostolic Church in full communion (though it will take several lifetimes at a minimum).

But the most important precondition for unity is fraternal charity. And to that end, it is not helpful for Catholics to harbor either romantic notions that Orthodoxy is the Church That's Free From Whatever Bugs Me OR triumphalist assumptions that the Orthodox are "schismatics" who therefore don't need to be taken seriously.

As Todd likes to say: Peace!

[Andrew]

tmatt,

As a fellow Orthodox Christian, I have a question for you that is taken from a real life situation I have encountered in Orthodox America:

How is it that In Vitro Fertilization can be blessed by clergy in one diocese of America but forbidden by clergy in another diocese in the same jurisdiction? Looks to me like not all Orthodox Christians have the same understanding of the sacredness of human life and that not all moral issues are settled.

[reluctant penitent]

There seems to me something basically mistaken about talking about unity between the "Catholics" and the "Orthodox". The "Orthodox" cannot unite with Rome because there is no one to tell all Orthodox Christians to Unite with Rome. Union will occur one Orthodox Church at a time.

The article about Eastern Catholic Churches in the recent issue of Crisis tells the story of how union with Eastern Churches is accomplished.

The following excerpt is quite interesting:

'Relations with the Assyrian Orthodox Church have also improved. In 1994, the Orthodox Patriarch Mar Dinkha IV and Pope John Paul II signed a common Christological Declaration. Two years later, Mar Dinkha IV and Chaldean Catholic Patriarch Raphael I Bidawid signed a joint patriarchal statement that committed the two Churches to full reintegration, drafting a common catechism and setting up a joint seminary. At this stage, the Assyrians wish to retain their freedom and self-governance while the Chaldean Catholics affirm the necessity of maintaining full communion with Rome.'

So the Chaldean Catholics are in full communion with Rome, the Assyrians wish to retain their self-governance, but their Patriarchs have signed a declaration committing the two Churches to full integration. It may very well happen that the Assyrians will enter communion with Rome by integrating with the Chaldeans.

The prospects of integration with many Eastern CHurches are pretty good because many of these Churches are unhappy with their association with the Greeks and the Russians, who tend to be heavy-handed in their dealings with other Orthodox Churches, and, for that matter, in their dealings with each other.

Let us hope that such unions will give us benighted Latin Catholics more choice when it comes to attending reverent Liturgies!

[Simon]

A point here about Catholic parish life in the United States: We all know there are real problems, but I don't think the situation is nearly as bad as a tour through the St. Blog's comment boxes makes it out to be.

My own parish is dynamic, orthodox, and marked by a strong sense of community and evangelical outreach. It is neither unique nor extraordinary. I am fully confident that our priests are "on our side" as we raise our children in the Faith. I am also friends with several dozen converts, and I don't think most of them have experienced anything less than enthusiasm and support from the local clergy.

We live in the Arlington, Va. Diocese, and I'm aware that the situation varies greatly around the country (Rod Dreher -- if your family has lived in Brooklyn, Miami and Dallas, you've hit an unholy trifecta of some of the most messed up dioceses in the US, so your exhaustion is more than understandable!).

But I think there are lots of us "orthodox" Catholics out there who do not feel "at war" with the local parish or clergy. Unfortunately the nature of the back-and-forth commentary between extremes on the web can make that hard to see.

[Ronny]

As I understand it, part of Mathewes-Green's criticism is that the chaos of dissent in the Roman Catholic Church is a product of an extra 1,000 years of theological development. She writes:

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.

This has not been the case in the West. An expanded role for the pope was followed by other theological developments, even regarding how salvation is achieved...

But when the Orthodox look at Catholics, we see an extra thousand years of theological development, plus rebellion in the pews.

Setting aside the contention that the orthodox are not quite as united in their faith as Mathewes-Green suggests, one of my difficulties with this line of thought is her assumption that all of this theological development in the West since the schism has been unnecessary. Unburdened by a millenium of excess doctrinal baggage, so the implication goes, it is of course easier for the Orthodox to get along with each other concerning the essentials of the faith.

One could look at this, however, and turn her argument that "faith must be organic" back upon her. Yes, faith must be organic, and part of being organic means that it continues to grow and respond to the challenges that each age presents to it. This does not mean that the deposit of faith circa the 11th century is substantively changed or abandoned, but rather that understanding of it has deepened in the face of each new threat to faith or morals -- just as it did in the first 1,000 years of the church's history.

Seen in this light, the statement that "for the past millennium major questions of faith and morals have been pretty much at rest in the Eastern hemisphere" makes one wonder whether nothing in the past millenium has warranted a doctrinal response. In the past 1,000 years, Roman Catholicism has wrestled with the Protestant Revolt, the Enlightenment, post-modernism, and more than a few recycled old heresies and even some new ones. Part of this response was doctrinal. To be sure, Orthodoxy has had its share of serious challenges as well, but in contrast it has not undergone any doctrinal development, instead clinging to "the consensus of the early church." That is very good, but the question is whether it is adequate. If external unity comes at the expense of developing doctrine useful for guiding the souls of the faithful in response to new or renewed attacks upon the faith and morals of the Church, is that really a virtue? Is the unity of such a faith really "organic?"

[c matt]

Jesus said that the Church on earth would included chaff among the wheat, and that it was GOD'S job to seperate the two in the next life, not our job to determine who is a "Real Catholic" in this life.

I think that may be a little simplistic - it is God's job to judge finally and send the chaff and wheat their eternal separate ways. But I think it is very much our job to in this life determine who is a Real Catholic in this life, starting with our own self, and help the chaff become wheat (and help the wheat lose some of its own chaff). Are you suggesting that if you see someone's soul in mortal danger, you have absolutely no obligation to point it out (with charity), because its God's job to sort them out. Yes, it must be done charitably (not an easy task). But it does seem rather uncharitable when you do see someone close to mortal danger and simply shrug and say - Sorry chaff ole buddy, but your on your own - best wishes on judgment day! Cui bono?

[Ronny]

Rod,

You wrote:

If a Catholic separates himself from the unity in faith, there is precisely no penalty incurred.

I don't become Orthodox because I don't believe in Orthodoxy. I'm a Catholic.

I don't see how you are reconciling your lament and your affirmation with your approval of Mathewes-Green's argument. She is pointing to alleged unity of faith in the pews of Orthodox churches and saying that if you have to enforce the faith, then you have "lost the battle" -- enforcement for which you seem to long; yet the picture she paints of unity in Orthodoxy hinges upon her repeated point that there has been a lack of doctrinal development over a millenium in her church -- doctrinal development that you, as a Catholic, likely believe to be legitimate and necessary.

[Mark Adams]

I'd love to see a frank but charitable discussion of the real issues raised by Frederica's article. This stuff matters to me personally now in a way that it didn't five years ago.

I don't mean to seem unsympathetic to your concerns Rod. I am. But I don't see what issues were brought up by FMG that is particularly original or insightful. That there is a high rate of theological dissent in the Catholic Church? Um, yeah. That it is problematic? Correct. That what's in the CCC and what happens on the ground is often in direct contradiction? Okay.

Isn't this stuff we know pretty well. My first born child is due in two months so I perhaps I do not yet understand where you are coming from. But I have lived/worked in the dioceses of Fort Worth; Dallas; Alexandria, LA; Arlington, VA; and Washington and in not one of those places was I not able to find reverent worship and good priests even if I had to put forth a little effort. Is it a shame that it has to be that way? Yes. Is it a shame that you can't just go to your local parish and get an orthodox priest, decent liturgy and something other than banal sermons? Yes. But I have never felt all alone.

For anyone living in Dallas it can't be more than a 30 minute drive to the Cistercian monastery where you can attend a beautiful liturgy, in a beautiful church, celebrated by some of them holiest and most brilliant priests in the Church. Want the company and support of good Catholic laymen? Why not attend the monthly evening of recollection put on by Opus Dei. Whatever problems one might have with OD it would be difficult to make the argument that they don't provide pretty solid spiritual formation.

[Frederica Mathewes-Green]

can't believe it. I wrote a long, long message, hit "preview," and then "post". and where did it go?

I don't have time to re-compose bec I've got to go out for the day, and next week I'm leaving for England and won't be back until September.

I will have a piece on Beliefnet.com soon, maybe today, on "is there controversy in the Orthodox Church." That will address some questions.

Darnit -- I must ahve spent an hour on that message. musta been divine intervention. If it ever shows up, I hope someone will make sure it gets posted here.

[Rod Dreher]

Ronny: Seen in this light, the statement that "for the past millennium major questions of faith and morals have been pretty much at rest in the Eastern hemisphere" makes one wonder whether nothing in the past millenium has warranted a doctrinal response. In the past 1,000 years, Roman Catholicism has wrestled with the Protestant Revolt, the Enlightenment, post-modernism, and more than a few recycled old heresies and even some new ones. Part of this response was doctrinal. To be sure, Orthodoxy has had its share of serious challenges as well, but in contrast it has not undergone any doctrinal development, instead clinging to "the consensus of the early church." That is very good, but the question is whether it is adequate.

This issue weighs heavily on my mind, as I wonder how well Orthodoxy will weather the full blast of modernism and modernity. Here is a quote from Fr. Neuhaus's review of Fr. Schmemann's journals. I apologize for the length of this quote, but it really does speak to this issue, and deserves to be read in full:

Fr. Neuhaus writes: Of the nineteen participants, [Fr. Schmemann] was the only Orthodox theologian at Hartford, and the problems of Protestants and Catholics were not, for him, first–order concerns. He had his head and heart filled enough with the evils, sins, and glories of Orthodoxy. “I firmly believe,” he writes, “that Orthodoxy is Truth and Salvation and I shudder when I see what is being offered under the guise of Orthodoxy, what people seem to like in it, what they live for, what the most orthodox, the best people among them, see in Orthodoxy.” The Russian émigrés, who did not share his vision of Orthodoxy’s universal mission, were the cause of endless frustration. As were the émigrés, so to speak, from Protestantism and Catholicism who sought out Orthodoxy as an escape from history. Fr. Alexander wrote, “Since the Orthodox world was and is inevitably and even radically changing, we have to recognize, as the first symptom of the crisis, a deep schizophrenia which has slowly penetrated the Orthodox mentality: life in an unreal, nonexisting world, firmly affirmed as real and existing. Orthodox consciousness did not notice the fall of Byzantium, Peter the Great’s reforms, the Revolution; it did not notice the revolution of the mind, of science, of lifestyles, forms of life. . . . In brief, it did not notice history.”

It is precisely that escape from history that many think is the glory of Orthodoxy. But the escape is delusory. Years later, this entry: “Once more, I am convinced that I am quite alienated from Byzantium, and even hostile to it. In the Bible, there is space and air; in Byzantium the air is always stuffy. All is heavy, static, petrified. . . . Byzantium’s complete indifference to the world is astounding. The drama of Orthodoxy: we did not have a Renaissance, sinful but liberating from the sacred. So we live in nonexistent worlds: in Byzantium, in Russia, wherever, but not in our own time.” (Here and elsewhere, “the sacred” refers to the artificial world of religiosity, churchiness, and clericalism separated from history and everyday experience.) May 24, 1977: “Orthodoxy refuses to recognize the fact of the collapse and the breakup of the Orthodox world; it has decided to live in its illusion; it has turned the Church into that illusion (yesterday we heard again and again about the ‘Patriarch of the great city of Antioch and of all the East’); it made the Church into a nonexistent world. I feel more and more strongly that I must devote the rest of my life to trying to dispel this illusion.”

The only Antioch in the gazetteer today is a city near Oakland, California. Ancient Antioch is in ruins, but, Fr. Alexander complained, Orthodoxy goes on playing a churchy game of Let’s Pretend. St. Vladimir’s Seminary, of which Fr. Alexander was dean, is part of the Orthodox Church in America (OCA), which was granted autocephaly, or its own ruling authority, by the Russian church in 1970. By virtue of his early childhood in Estonia and his later years in the Russian émigré community in Paris, Fr. Alexander also had continuing interactions with the Russian Church in Exile after he came to the U.S. in the 1950s. When in his journals he speaks of Orthodoxy in America, it is not always clear whether he means the OCA or the more hard–line traditionalists of the Russian émigré community, the line between the two being frequently blurred.

Russian Orthodoxy in the U.S. he found incorrigibly quarrelsome. “The function of a quarrel is in allowing people to feel principled, to serve the cause, i.e., to feel alive. . . . And free time can be filled with a quarrel. The law of émigré life: those who don’t like to quarrel organize balls and can also keep busy—endlessly—reconciling those who quarrel. And those who enjoy quarrels quarrel! But the function of both is the same.” He writes, “I mainly feel like a stranger in the midst of the typically Russian ‘cozy’ atmosphere of the Church: Russian piety, complete self–assurance, the absence of any anxiety, any doubt, any questioning. They serve well, sing well—but they serve and sing anything well, as long as it was ‘traditional’! One word missing and all would collapse. Russians accept as slaves, or deny as slaves—blindly and stubbornly.”

Again and again, he returns to what is intellectually and culturally stifling in Orthodoxy. “To change the atmosphere of Orthodoxy, one has to learn to look at oneself in perspective, to repent, and if needed, to accept change, conversion. In historic Orthodoxy, there is a total absence of criteria for self–criticism. Orthodoxy defined itself: against heresies, against the West, the East, the Turks, etc. Orthodoxy became woven with complexes of self–affirmation, an exaggerated triumphalism: to acknowledge errors is to destroy the foundations of true faith.” On December 23, 1976, after a series of difficult meetings at the seminary, Fr. Alexander writes: “My point of view is that a good half of our students are dangerous for the Church—their psychology, their tendencies, a sort of constant obsession with something. Orthodoxy takes on a different, ugly aspect, something important is missing, and the Orthodoxy that these students consciously or subconsciously favor is distorted, narrow, emotional—in the end, pseudo–Orthodoxy. Not only at the seminary, but everywhere, I acutely sense the spread of a strange Orthodoxy.”

A year earlier he had written: “What used to be an organic, natural style became stylization, spiritually weak, harmful. The main problem of Orthodoxy is the constraint due to style, and its inability to revise it; a prevalent absence of self–criticism, of checking the tradition of the elders by Tradition, by love of Truth. A growing idolatry.” Seminarians and clergy, he said, wear their cassocks and beards as an armor against life and thought. A pseudo–Orthodoxy. A strange Orthodoxy. A growing idolatry. These are hard words. Yet, against those who attacked Orthodoxy, Fr. Alexander came to its defense. “I feel myself a radical ‘challenger,’ but among challengers I feel myself a conservative and traditionalist.” He could never feel wholly at home in any one camp. “I cannot identify with any complete system with an integral view of the world or an ideology. It seems to me that anything finished, complete, and not open to another dimension is heavy and self–destructive. I see the error of any dialectics that proceed with thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, removing possible contradictions. I think that openness must always remain; it is faith, in it God is found, who is not a ‘synthesis’ but life and fullness.”

[amy]

Frederica:

That's - AWFUL. I cannot account for the vagaries of typepad. My advice to those who would post at length - take two seconds and save the post to your clipboard before you attempt to post it. Then if things screw up, you still have it. That's what I do with longer blog posts, too.

Gosh. That's a bummer.

[reluctant penitent]

Is there really an opportunity in Greek Orthodoxy for a Greek Orthodox lay person to voice dissent? There is, as far as I know, not one Orthodox University. There is no tradition of clerics and laypeople battling it out in public philosophical and theological disputations as there is in the West. Dissent in the Orthodox is expressed by Orthodox Christians when they do things that the Church prohibits. Abortion rates in Greece and Russia suggest that there is a great deal of Orthodox dissent.

[Michael Patrick]

The Orthodox hold that the Church is consummated by Eucharist, not that “unity is created by believing the same things.” I appreciate what Mathewes-Green is trying to say, but I think she misses the mark.

A household analogy: A family is consummated by sharing flesh and blood (husband and wife) and by sharing food at the table (all together now), not by agreements to meet under one roof and share a last name.

I agree with Fr. Newman’s critique that M-G posits “a dichotomy that does not exist.” Virtually all Christian communions are both institutional *and* they demand “unity of faith” (as they see it). Shared belief is a must-have for unity in any communion.

I think it’s accurate to say that the Orthodox let nothing stand before belief in a Person who’s flesh and blood given for food makes them One. The family belief *system* is epitomized by the symbol of faith (Nicene creed) and obedience to the gospels.

[Rick]

The "organicness" of Orthodoxy no doubt makes for strong churches and communities.

But isn't it also an impediment to missionary outreach?

Doesn't it put Orthdox Christians at a disadvantage in bringing the Gospel to peoples who may be ready to embrace it, but whose cultures developed untouched by Plato, Aristotle, and the early Fathers?

[Ronny]

Doesn't it put Orthdox Christians at a disadvantage in bringing the Gospel to peoples who may be ready to embrace it, but whose cultures developed untouched by Plato, Aristotle, and the early Fathers?

Someone may correct me, but my impression is that you can leave Aristotle off of the list from the Orthodox perspective. He is too closely associated with what many of them see as the errors of medieval Scholasticism.

[WRY]

reluctant,
There's plenty of Greek Orthodox dissent out there, though it takes a different form from the kinds of issues we RC-ers debate.
Go to www.ocl.org for a taste. Wear your helmet.
And for a really nasty Ukrainian church battle, visit www.saveouruoc.com. But pack a three-day change of clothes.

[Ronny]

Rod,

That was an interesting excerpt. I read Scmemann's For the Life of the World some years ago and enjoyed that book (though I was frustrated by some of his all-too-common Orthodox complaints about scholastic theology, especially Aquinas). Everything I have heard about Schmemann suggests that he was a leading light among Orthodox theologians in the 20th century.

[Pontificator]

I wish I knew what Orthodox parish life is like, on the ground, in places like Greece and Russia where the Church has been around forever and there is a strong relationship between cultural identity and church identity. Am I wrong in suspecting that Frederica's view of Orthodoxy may be colored by the fact that her primary experience of Orthodoxy is here in the United States? A couple of factors immediately come to mind:

First, Orthodoxy really is quite tiny in the U.S. The Hartford Institute estimates that Orthodox adherents only number 1.2 million (as of 2002). Smallness and minority status can be an advantage in the maintenance of group identity and creedal integrity. Not necessarily, of course, but it can be.

Second, Orthodoxy is presently experiencing, at least in some places, the enthusiasm and vitality of new converts and the creation of new congregations. New converts can have a big impact on small congregations. And there is nothing quite as exciting as being part of a new congregation that is committed to mission and spiritual growth.

But what, I wonder, is parish life like in Greece? How many congregations are as spiritually vital as, say, Holy Cross Church in Linthicum, which is pastored by a convert to Orthodoxy and is one of the finest priests that I know.

Just a couple of thoughts.

[tmatt]

Several quick comments as I move out the door to the DC area (and Holy Cross Orthodox Church in Linthicum -- www.holycrossonline.org)

(1) Yes, I am proud of the martyrs and those that remained faithful. I am proud of the thousands of priests and bishops who did not yield. Yes, some did yield.

(2) The enthic confusion in Orthodoxy is a sinful condition. But we are watching a vital Orthodox presence in this land birthed. Organically, to mix metaphors.

(3) The Orthodox bishops are getting their act together on social issues and the stands connected to them. I remember, a few years ago, seeing Catholics crying as they marched with the OCA bishops. One older Catholic man kept saying, "Your bishops are here. Look, your bishops are here."

There are fewer social issues on which Orthodoxy has locked down dogma. I have always found it interesting that Catholicism -- modern day -- has such specific, nailed down positions on many issue (don't get me wrong, most of them valid), yet seems to have no strong voice today on, oh, heaven, hell, confession, salvation. You know. The little issues.

Those are the issues I asked questions about at the ground level and found no difference, whatsoever, between RC and ECUSA life. Zip. Nada. I often found the Catholic mainstream to be far, far left of ECUSA. But, hey, they were still Catholics -- leaders even -- because they were still part of the institution -- on salary, even.

Got to go now.

[Patrick Rothwell]

I know that I've said this before a million times, but the tendency of some conservative Christians (whether in Orthodoxy or Catholicism) to fret about the orthodoxy or othopraxy of their neighbors in the pew and what this means in terms of whether they can remain in communion with the Church as a whole reflects the mentality of the Protestant congregationalist quest for communion with the elect and the elect only. This utopian quest is a futile one, and the sooner that it is abandoned, the better. You aren't going to be able to avoid sharing the eucharist with spectacular sinners or heretics. This does not mean that a given parish might be spiritual poison for whatever reason to this or that person or family and that it might be necessary to attend another parish down the road or even in a neighboring town or city. That's a separate issue and the two ought never to be conflated.

[reluctant penitent]

wry,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but these seem to be discussions of territory disputes between the various Orthodox Churches. I wasn't able to find on the sites you gave me any examples of dissent from issues of theology.

[Ronny]

Terry,

I have always found it interesting that Catholicism -- modern day -- has such specific, nailed down positions on many issue (don't get me wrong, most of them valid), yet seems to have no strong voice today on, oh, heaven, hell, confession, salvation.

There is a difference between position and voice. The latter issues about which you write are nailed down, too, even if some voices are not proclaiming them very loudly or at all.

Anyhow, it has been my experience that those willing to voice Catholic moral and social teachings in their entirety rather than selectively have no problem voicing Church teaching about heaven, hell, confession and salvation. Usually, if the prelate avoids topics in the one area or voices them selectively, the same is done in the other.

[WRY]

reluctant,
The Greek Orthodox group is basically seeking more lay involvement in the church, kinda like VOTF I would guess on the Catholic side. To that extent I suppose it is a theological debate, because traditional Orthodoxy naturally assumes control by the hierarchy. I think OCL started as a outgrowth of the (successful) effort by American Greek Orthodox to oust then-Archbishop Spyridon in - 1998 I think. It started a lay-control movement that lives on and which the church is seemingly trying to tampen down. I don't know if there are, say, pro-abortion or pro-homosexual Orthodox dissidents but i haven't looked. Try Google!

[Andrew]

tmatt,

To say Orthodox Bishops are together on Social Issues is a little misleading, far few bishops especially in the GOA take public stands on social issues and those that do only jump into the fray when pushed.

Catholics may have rightfully cried when they saw Orthodox Bishops in the March for Life. But this Orthodox Christian sheds a tear of sadness when someone like Bishop Gerasimos in San Francisco gives a public interview saying how he loves the television show Desparate Housewives and offers his ambivalence on the same sex marriage issue. This Orthodox Christian sheds a tear of sadness when Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople honors pro-abortion legislators. And then there are the musings of Former Ambassador Theros seen at www.orthodoxnews.com on the abortion issue and what constitutes personhood. Does this help parents who want a Church "on their side"?

Tmatt, Frederica and others paint far too rosy a picture of Orthodoxy in America that is clouded by their cloistered convert experience. I wish they would use their positions to honestly engage the Church with a faithful form of criticism.

I am very happy as an Orthodox Christian but at the same time I cannot share the "everything is wonderful" viewpoint that these two hardworking and devoted Orthodox writers present. There are simply too many concerns to ignore.

[Simon]

Ronny -- good post. Your distinction between "position" and "voice" is an important one.

As to the Church's voice, it's also worth remembering that the Pope or any bishop can talk forever about "heaven, hell, confession, salvation" but only those physically present will ever hear about it. One brief mention of anything relating to sex, however, and we've got headlines around the world and maybe even Matt Drudge's flashing siren.

The "voice" of the Catholic Church is therefore expressed in significant part through a mostly secular media that doesn't understand religious faith but works off the template that Catholicism is important in so far as it deals with sexuality or "women's issues" (or, occasionally, some other hot button political issue like the Iraq war). Those issues are important, but they are hardly the central message the Church is conveying to the world.

The Orthodox, for better and for worse, are almost entirely ignored by the media and thus suffer no such distortion of their "voice". From the point of view of the average unchurched or casual believer, Orthodoxy has no voice (in my experience, a huge number of Americans have never even heard of Orthodox Christianity). This will of course change to the extent that Orthodoxy grows more influential in this country and elsewhere in the West. The question is whether the Orthodox will be ready.

[Theodora]

I am somewhat at odds with both the Catholic and Orthodox traditions. I was raised RC and attended RC school for all of my 12 years of pre-college education. I was often confused by doctrinal and procedural changes in the 1960's, and developed suspicion about how "right" the Church could be if doctrine kept changing. I converted to Orthodoxy in 1996, but don't practice as much as I used to. The zeal I had for the OC gradually dwindled away due to the denial of opportunity for women in the spiritual offices.

Both churches are guilty of spiritual chauvinism in my view - the RC church now "permits" women to read the Epistles, while the OC allows women to read, but they can not officially be "readers" because they are not men..both churches are patriarchal, and both have alienated me personally. I don't have the calling to be a priest, and I don't wish to be nun. I would have felt fulfilled as perhaps a deaconess, but the OC won't admit women deacons were ever ordained, which they were in the early church. I have always felt a little sad at Orthodox baptisms for girls - the boys are taken behind the altar, while the girls are denied this beautiful tradition. What does this say about the OC position on women's spiritual depth and future contributions outside of church cleaning and bake sales??

Would any sort of unity between the two traditions address this concern?

[Maureen]

I thought Antakya (Antioch) was a good-sized town. Is this one of those cases like Verulamium (I think the name was) and St. Alban's, where people didn't go back to the Roman city site but built anew across the river?

[David Kubiak]

I want to find out more about Orthodox moral theology and how it relates to their practice of the Sacrament of Penance, about which I know literally nothing. Roman reality is of course an unholy mess, but at least there are authoritative teachings one can turn to for the "orthodox" understanding. Do the Eastern Churches have have the theological distinction between mortal and venial sin, and the means by which each is forgiven? Is the West prepared to write off these things as post-schism particular developments? Much is said and written about Eucharistic unity, but I have never seen a discussion about the Sacrament of Penance in the East.

[Facing East]

A great deal of the criticism of FMG's piece seems unfair. The piece is written for a broad audience of people who know mostly know little about Catholicism and less about Orthodoxy. The topic is, why do the Orthodox appear unresponsive to Catholic overtures toward unity? And FMG attempts to answer this by explaining the Orthodox understanding of unity which differs from the Catholic one.

Obviously as an Orthodox she thinks the Orthodox view is correct. But nowhere does she say or imply that Orthodox parishes are more spiritually vital than Catholic ones, or that Orthodox believers are on average better catechized or more faithful than Catholic ones.

There is a difference in how Catholics and Orthodox understand unity. The Catholic church teaches that the unity of the church is centered on the authority one man, the pope. Orthodoxy has no such notion. And that difference does lead to differences in the spiritual ethos of the churches.

The character of dissent is one area that does seem to be different. Not necessarily a difference in the quantity of dissenters - I have no idea what percent of Catholic vs Orthodox believe abrtion is morally acceptable, to take one example. But dissent seems to take very different forms.

Catholic dissent on doctine and morals strikes me as much more vocal, public, and strident. It is the double-edged sword of the papacy: the pope has power to enforce doctrine, but the papacy also allows dissenters to fantasize about the "next pope but one" who might agree with them. Orthodox who disagree with fundamental doctrines really have nowhere to go and no one to appeal to. It seems that they either keep their dissent private or slip quietly out the door to a more congenial denomination.

[Michael Patrick]

David Kubiak,

I don't have book titles about penthos in the EOC tradition with me at work (I'm on a lunch break now), but I'll be glad to send you a short list of good ones if you'll email me.

[Eileen R]

I love Frederica's articles and books. Found her through my pro-life work and have read and appreciated her books on her experience as an Orthodox Christian. I love and revere the Orthodox tradition. But I really do have to take issue with this article.

Facing East:
Catholic dissent on doctine and morals strikes me as much more vocal, public, and strident. It is the double-edged sword of the papacy: the pope has power to enforce doctrine, but the papacy also allows dissenters to fantasize about the "next pope but one" who might agree with them. Orthodox who disagree with fundamental doctrines really have nowhere to go and no one to appeal to. It seems that they either keep their dissent private or slip quietly out the door to a more congenial denomination.

I think that's a really interesting and valid point. However, the problem I have with her article is that it doesn't just come down to Orthodox vs. Catholic understandings of unity. I think she factually misrepresents the Catholic understanding of unity. Not out of any desire to misrepresent, but because she's misunderstood something. However, as Amy's excerpt from the Catechism makes clear, the Catholic Church does not believe what she says it does.

And that's why Catholics here are not pleased with the article.

[tmatt]

Home now after moving out of my university office.

Tmatt, Frederica and others paint far too rosy a picture of Orthodoxy in America that is clouded by their cloistered convert experience. I wish they would use their positions to honestly engage the Church with a faithful form of criticism.

I am very happy as an Orthodox Christian but at the same time I cannot share the "everything is wonderful" viewpoint that these two hardworking and devoted Orthodox writers present. There are simply too many concerns to ignore.

Where is anyone seeing an "everything is wonderful" point of view? Not from me or Frederica or anyone else that I read or know.

As a reporter, I covered one of the worst -- horrific, hellish -- scandals that the Greeks have ever had in North America. The bishop was, I believe, just short of demonic. If anyone out there knows the case, all I have to do is say Denver and People Magazine. Shudder.

I have seen many, many Orthodox problems. But I stand by my earlier statements and questions. And I have massive problems with Vatican II, as I stated.

And I love church music.

[tmatt]

Oh, and I don't think anyone here is on a quest for the perfect parish. I simply would prefer to attend a parish that is not going to actively undercut, warp or kill the faith of my children. That's all.

[Mark Adams]

Where is anyone seeing an "everything is wonderful" point of view?

We are getting it from her suggestion that the entire Orthodox Church enjoys uniform agreement on doctrine.

[Pontificator]

The problem of dissent in Catholicism against magisterial teaching, especially among theologians and priests, is a real problem; but isn't this a post-Vatican II phenomenon? And therefore isn't it inaccurate to say that the present tolerance of dissent within the Catholic Church is an essential difference between Orthodoxy and Catholicism?

[George]

Well, let's say some good things about FMG. She and her husband, a successful Orthodox priest, are strongly pro-life and she is an amazing witness to orthodox Christianity, in all of its forms in 21st century America.

FMG was baptized as a Catholic and had limited experience with Catholicism in her hometown of Charleston, South Carolina. After moving away from her Faith for a time, she and her husband enthusiastically embraced Christianity as Episcopalians. He was a well-regarded Episcopal priest for 15 years and converted to Orthodoxy because of strong pro-life convictions and concerns with other modernist tendencies in Anglicanism.

From the standpoint of many Catholics, including the late Pope John Paul II, that makes them members of the Church catholic. As Catholics, we recognize the Orthodox churches as authentic, and we extend to them the right of communion.

From the Orthodox side, there are still significant issues. FMG has highlighted a few. From what I have heard from Orthodox Anglicans and former Anglicans who are now Orthodox, these not only revolve around the papacy but how we, as Western Catholics in the U.S., come together as the Body of Christ--the ways we are organized in comparatively giant congregations and how we relate to each other as Christians. It is simply very different, in daily/weekly practice, scale and other ways, from many Orthodox Christians, Episcopalians and former Episcopalians who are now Orthodox organize their lives in Faith.

FMG is giving us some clues about how unity among Orthodox Christians, which Pope Benedict prays and perhaps acts for everyday, will be difficult to achieve. And Rod's laments give us a good sense of some of the things that other Christians have which are missing from our traditions. These track to my own experiences as a guest in a traditional Episcopal congregation. We would be wise to listen to both of these former Episcopalians.

[c matt]

Catholic church teaches that the unity of the church is centered on the authority [of] one man, the pope.

Its not quite that simple:

From the CCC -

MORAL LIFE AND THE MAGISTERIUM OF THE CHURCH

2032 The Church, the "pillar and bulwark of the truth," "has received this solemn command of Christ from the apostles to announce the saving truth." "To the Church belongs the right always and everywhere to announce moral principles, including those pertaining to the social order, and to make judgments on any human affairs to the extent that they are required by the fundamental rights of the human person or the salvation of souls."

2033 The Magisterium of the Pastors of the Church in moral matters is ordinarily exercised in catechesis and preaching, with the help of the works of theologians and spiritual authors. Thus from generation to generation, under the aegis and vigilance of the pastors, the "deposit" of Christian moral teaching has been handed on, a deposit composed of a characteristic body of rules, commandments, and virtues proceeding from faith in Christ and animated by charity. Alongside the Creed and the Our Father, the basis for this catechesis has traditionally been the Decalogue which sets out the principles of moral life valid for all men.

2034 The Roman Pontiff and the bishops are "authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach the faith to the people entrusted to them, the faith to be believed and put into practice." The ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Pope and the bishops in communion with him teach the faithful the truth to believe, the charity to practice, the beatitude to hope for.

2035 The supreme degree of participation in the authority of Christ is ensured by the charism of infallibility. This infallibility extends as far as does the deposit of divine Revelation; it also extends to all those elements of doctrine, including morals, without which the saving truths of the faith cannot be preserved, explained, or observed.

2036 The authority of the Magisterium extends also to the specific precepts of the natural law, because their observance, demanded by the Creator, is necessary for salvation. In recalling the prescriptions of the natural law, the Magisterium of the Church exercises an essential part of its prophetic office of proclaiming to men what they truly are and reminding them of what they should be before God.

So the Pope can't teach against the deposit of the faith. Wating on the "next one" who might be "with us" on matters such as divorce, abortion, SSM, etc. is a vain hope.

[Rod Dreher]

TMatt: Oh, and I don't think anyone here is on a quest for the perfect parish. I simply would prefer to attend a parish that is not going to actively undercut, warp or kill the faith of my children. That's all.

Yep. Patrick, I think it's a canard to impute this mythical idea that people like me want only to worship in a museum for saints. Not at all (for the record, such a place would never let somebody like me in). I simply want what Terry says he wants. I don't think that's too much to ask, and I'm awfully tired of Catholics saying that this kind of thing is an unrealistic ideal, and people like me should quit noticing this stuff and complaining about it, because this is the One True Church, and ex opere operato.

[Mark Adams]

Rod,
I don't think that is too much to ask either but my question is, can you really not find in Dallas a parish that doesn't "actively undercut, warp or kill the faith of my children"?

[F. C. Bauerschmidt]

I'll offer an "Amen" to Patrick Rothwell's post. I fear that B16's talk of a "smaller, more faithful" Church has been taken out of context by some, leading them to advocate a kind of Neo-Donatism, in which the Church is some sort of pure body of the elect, rather than Augustine's "mixed body." Sure, I want a more faithful Church, but I also don't want to stomp on the fingers of those who are just barely hanging on to the Catholic faith.

[Tom C]

“I simply want what Terry says he wants. I don't think that's too much to ask, and I'm awfully tired of Catholics saying that this kind of thing is an unrealistic ideal, and people like me should quit noticing this stuff and complaining about it . . . .”

I agree with you Rod. I grew up as a Southern Baptist, and at church we were always around folks who took the Gospel seriously and lived it. I don’t think it’s an unrealistic expectation. Unfortunately, I think too many Catholics have set the bar really low.

[Ronny]

Facing East,

But dissent seems to take very different forms.

Orthodox who disagree with fundamental doctrines really have nowhere to go and no one to appeal to. It seems that they either keep their dissent private or slip quietly out the door to a more congenial denomination.

Asking whether Mathewes-Green's depiction of "unity" as understood by Roman Catholicism versus that of Orthodoxy is correct is fair game, especially since her argument is that it is precisely these different understandings that are an obstacle to unity.

In fact, your comment that I quote above is precisely one of multiple reasons that much of the criticism of the article has not been "unfair." If, as Mathewes-Green states, "unity is created by believing the same things," but that unity is in large part the product of attrition of dissenters, then the fact of unity on this count in Orthodoxy could be attributed to greater willingness to abandon Orthodoxy among dissenters than it is to something intrinsic in the Orthodox concept of unity.

Moreover, your remark that dissent is "more vocal, public, and strident" among Roman Catholics in America than among Orthodox in America points to another appearance of unity in Orthodoxy versus Catholicism that may evaporate under scrutiny. The reason is sheer numbers. The American Religious Identity Survey found that almost one quarter of the people living in the US self-identify as Catholics. In contrast, less than half of a percentage point self-identified as Orthodox. Dissent among Catholics if of course going to be louder, more visible, and more frequent given numbers of that magnitude. In contrast, the Orthodox are going to appear to be far more unified where they really are or not.

There are other criticisms as well, none of which is necessarily unfair even if you think them incorrect. One that has been mentioned is Mathewes-Green's admission that unity in Orthodoxy is due in part to its undergoing hardly any doctrinal development since the schism, thus providing less concrete fodder for disagreement than in the Roman Catholicism. Again, is unity on this count due to something intrinsic in the Orthodox conception of unity, or is it simply millenium-long status quo due to historical accident?

Also, to what extent is the apparent unity in Orthodoxy due to the phenomenon of which Andrew speaks above and that I have seen echoed by other Orthodox writers -- that the Orthodox hierarchy has its own share of prelates who fail to preach Church teaching? Terry Mattingly is right to suggest that absence of discord due to failure to preach difficult or unpopular truths is no virtue in the Catholic Church. The same goes for Orthodoxy.

Finally, there is the question of whether there really is unity "created by believing the same things" in the pews of Orthodox churches to the extent that Mathewes-Green suggests. A number of people -- Orthodox included -- have suggested "no," that there is far more dissent going on than Mathewes-Green acknowledges.

These, of course, are questions about whether Mathewes-Green's account of unity in the Orthodox Church is correct. They do not touch upon the complaint of some above that her understanding of Roman Catholic unity is off the mark as well. It is even possible that Mathewes-Green's understanding of what unity is among the Orthodox is not really the Orthodox understanding of what that unity is -- assuming it has a unified understanding of its own unity in the first place.

BTW, don't get me wrong -- I am not simply given a litany of how bad things are among the Orthodox. I know all too well how of how much glass the walls of my own house are comprised. Nevertheless, you question whether criticisms of Mathewes-Green's article are fair, and my aim has been to address the ways in which they very well could be.

[Facing East]

Eileen R: you say FMG factually misrepresents the Catholic understanding of unity.

FMG was not writing a seminary term paper on the Catholic understanding of unity. She was briefly summarizing for an op-ed piece how the Catholic understanding unity differs from the Orthodox understanding, so far as that understanding affects the quest for Catholic-Orthodox union. For that purpose, I think her summary is reasonable and fair.

Question: from the Catholic point of view, what would the Orthodox have to do to be reunited? Answer: change their understanding of the Church, by accepting the temporal supremacy and doctrinal infallibility of the pope. That's all. And that's what the Orthodox refuse to do.

Yes, the Catholic understanding of unity involves more than just the institutional church and the pope, but that's the point that's at issue. I don't think it's factually inaccurate to point that out.

[Rod Dreher]

Frederica asked me to review a paper she gave on "Ut Unum Sint" at a recent ecumencial gathering. Her argument is much lengthier and more detailed than she can possibly get into in a short op-ed column of 700 words. That doesn't make what she did say right or wrong, it's just to suggest that I wouldn't read this little piece as exhaustive.

By the way, I'm enjoying this thread. I think there are good points being made all around. Mark, I'll drop you a private note about my experience here in Dallas. My personal situation is not all that germane to the main discussion here, and I don't want to derail the dialogue.

[Patrick Henry Reardon]

When Kh. Matthewes-Green says that the Orthodox concept of unity is "like the unity among vegetarians or Red Sox fans," I must agree with her. Recent news from Jerusalem, Athens, and Constantinople does indicate that this is exactly how seriously Orthodox Christians take their unity.

[Patrick Rothwell]

"Sure, I want a more faithful Church, but I also don't want to stomp on the fingers of those who are just barely hanging on to the Catholic faith."

And there is no shortage of finger-stompers. I found one such finger-stomping post buried in that crazy thread where people are (off-topic) arguing about whether masturbation is worse than rape.

[Frederica Mathewes-Green]

whew! yall finally running out of steam?

they say the WSJ blog is hot & heavy ... I'm not even going to look.

as some have noted, this column was a very short piece, and it was aimed at a secular audience. Length constraints were terrible. I did 4 complete rewrites, and along the way many explanatory paragraphs bit the dust. Sometimes things were deleted bec the editor thought the audience wouldn't understand them, eg, I wanted to say that the Orthodox Church is troubled by nominalism, and she thought readers wouldn't know what the word means.

I don't have overly-rosy view of Orthodoxy, not after 13 yrs. As I said to a wavering friend, you're not looking for "perfect", you're looking for "better." Better than what you're suffering now in your current denom.

but to the point, this might be clarifying. Expanding a graf toward the end of the column. When Catholics look at Orthodox, they see the early church. We fit right in.

When Orthodox look at Catholics, we see an extra thousand years of theological development. The expanding papacy, the Anselmian "satisfaction" atonement, the idea of a need for humans to pay a "temporal penalty" for sin, Original Sin as inherited guilt, etc etc. THe Roman church had, what, 14 more "Ecumenical Councils" after the Schism? And we had none. We're still basically the first-millennium church.

Some of the theological developments in Rome provoked the Protestant Reformation, and Rome continued to zig and zag, trying to respond ot the challenges of the times. Even recently! Compare the Baltimore Catechism of 50 yrs ago with today's Catechism. Just look at teaching on Hell or Original sin. Catholicism continues to change.

Orthodoxy has not had to do this. The spiritual path of the ealry church works for all people, in all cultures (look at how it spread around the world in the first millennium). It doesn't have to be updated.

so we look just fine to Rome; we fit right into the vast "multiform fullness". But from the Orth perspective, its as if, while you were out, somebody moved an entire household of extra furnishings into your house. You come home and it's overwhelmingly different. the old stuff is mixed together with an impenetrable jumble of the new. It looks wholly confusing and unfamiliar. It's not home.

For Catholics, the headship of the pope holds it all together. You all belong to that family, despite the variety. For Orthodox, the spiritual path of teh early Church is what holds us together.

That's why "unity" looks easy to Caths, and impossible to Orths.

[brendon]

I would have felt fulfilled as perhaps a deaconess, but the OC won't admit women deacons were ever ordained, which they were in the early church.

Likewise in the case of their deaconesses, and generally in the case of those who have been enrolled among their clergy, let the same form be observed. And we mean by deaconesses such as have assumed the habit, but who, since they have no imposition of hands, are to be numbered only among the laity. --Council of Nicea I, Canon 19

[Tom C]

When I look at the Orthodox Church, I don’t see the early Church. I see Byzantium.

And the faith of the Orthodox Church, as expressed on the OCA’s website, for example, is far more wishy-washy than anything you’ll find in the CCC.

[Ronny]

Frederica,

Thank you for the latest post. It certainly brings out even more strongly that your explanation for the unity among believers in Orthodoxy is due less to something distinctive about the Orthodox idea of unity and more to the historical fact that there is less defined doctrine about which the Orthodox can disagree.

Orthodoxy has not had to do this. The spiritual path of the ealry church works for all people, in all cultures (look at how it spread around the world in the first millennium). It doesn't have to be updated.

Well, it is certainly true that Orthodoxy has not done this, but whether it has not had to do this is a different question. Understandably, you are going to come down on the side of saying that it has not had too. The Roman Catholic perspective, of course, would be that this is actually a problem for Orthodoxy. This matter, however, has less to do with different understandings of unity than it does with different understandings of the development of doctrine and questions of why it stopped in one part of the Church only with the Great Schism but continued in the other.

[F. C. Bauerschmidt]

We're still basically the first-millennium church.

Perhaps, but we don't live in the first millenium.

I am not advocating that the church turn this way and that, responding to every wind of change, but times do change, new questions do get asked, and this calls for some sort of response.

Also, it is clear that there was immense development (or at least change) in Eastern Christian theology, liturgy, piety etc. during the first millenium. Why was such change legitimate for the church's first millenium, but not for her second? If the Palamite essence/energies distinction was a legitimate conceptual clarification (I have my doubts, but I'm willing to grant that it was, for the sake of argument), why not Anselmian "satisfaction" theology? Even if Anselm's theology of satifactio is wrong, it isn't wrong simply because it's new.

[Ronny]

Addendum to what I wrote:

This matter, however, has less to do with different understandings of unity than it does with different understandings of the development of doctrine and questions of why it stopped in one part of the Church only with the Great Schism but continued in the other.

I take it back -- the concept of "unity" is at issue in answer to these questions. Namely, is the smaller body of doctrine that makes unity in Orthodoxy easier due to its having achieved a certain perfection the West lacked that just happened to coincide roughly with the Great Schism, or was its growth stunted precisely because unity with the West was broken at that time?

[WRY]

Frederica,
Of course Orthodoxy has changed, or rather, gone through doctrinal development: there is the Palamite distinction between God's essence and His uncreated energies, which went off in directions that were unknown in the west. And today we can witness a change before our eyes, in what the Orthodox say about the morality of contraception.
I don't see that Catholic teaching on hell and original sin have changed at all. I don't get that part.

[Rod Dreher]

FCB: Also, it is clear that there was immense development (or at least change) in Eastern Christian theology, liturgy, piety etc. during the first millenium. Why was such change legitimate for the church's first millenium, but not for her second? If the Palamite essence/energies distinction was a legitimate conceptual clarification (I have my doubts, but I'm willing to grant that it was, for the sake of argument), why not Anselmian "satisfaction" theology? Even if Anselm's theology of satifactio is wrong, it isn't wrong simply because it's new.

FCB, it doesn't seem to me that she's saying that at all. She's saying that Rome has had ecumenical councils post-schism, and has changed (or "developed," as you wish) its doctrine without the East. The East, for whatever reason, hasn't had another ecumenical council. If the Orthodox sees were to come into full communion with Rome, it would have to accept as true all these subsequent theological developments. She's not saying "It's new therefore it's wrong," she's saying "it's new therefore it's not the same faith as we in the East profess -- and that's a major obstacle to unity."

[Rod Dreher]

Hey, where is Uncle Diogenes to sort this all out for us?

[c matt]

Compare the Baltimore Catechism of 50 yrs ago with today's Catechism. Just look at teaching on Hell or Original sin. Catholicism continues to change.

Maybe its just in the eye of the beholder. I compare the BC and the CCC and don't see change - I see deeper explanations. Sort of like explaining to your five year old that you put gas in the car, it goes through to the engine which burns it, causing the engine to turn and then the enging turns the wheel

vs.

A mechanincal engineering professor explainging to his graduate students how variations in the air/gasoline mixture relative to bore size of the pistons can increase fuel economy (ok, your average pew warmer may be closer to the five year old than the grad student).

Rather than comparing it as a house with new furnishings, I see the RC as the teenager who went on to adulthood, and the OC as the son who remained in the teen years, sort of refusing to grow up. Catholicism continues to grow and accepts the development that comes with maturity, OC does its best to refuse to.

[Facing East]

c matt: comparing the BC to the CCC I see something different from what you see. I see the Catholic Church moving back to its roots and closer to Orthodox teaching unde the influence of the Byzantine Catholics. For example the BC clearly defines original sin as an inherited guilt that causes us to merit punishment - a teaching the Orthodox reject. The CCC emphasizes inheritance of corrupt nature and the consequences of sin, as the East does. That's a good development , but it hardly shows the CC to be more mature than the OC.

[Ronny]

Rod,

She's not saying "It's new therefore it's wrong," she's saying "it's new therefore it's not the same faith as we in the East profess -- and that's a major obstacle to unity."

I disagree -- she is saying both. That is pretty well implied by these two paragraphs:

Some of the theological developments in Rome provoked the Protestant Reformation, and Rome continued to zig and zag, trying to respond ot the challenges of the times. Even recently! Compare the Baltimore Catechism of 50 yrs ago with today's Catechism. Just look at teaching on Hell or Original sin. Catholicism continues to change.

Orthodoxy has not had to do this. The spiritual path of the ealry church works for all people, in all cultures (look at how it spread around the world in the first millennium). It doesn't have to be updated.

Mathewes-Green by her language is pretty clearly suggesting that Rome could not leave well enough alone, and that it thus has had to keep responding to each new challenge that its own theological developments provoked. Orthodoxy, in contrast, did not simply stop developing its doctrine -- it didn't have to continue. It reached a happy resting point due to some presumable completeness or perfection of doctrine that has eluded Rome, not burdening itself with extra theological accoutrements that could be obstacles to other peoples -- and look how well it flourished as a result (at least for the first millenium, that is).

I think Mathewes-Green is wrongheaded in this account, but I'm not surprised that she thinks it. I mean, she is Orthodox, after all, not Roman Catholic, and so it is not surprising that she thinks about this in the same way that most of her co-religionists do and not as Roman Catholics do.

[Ronny]

A comment about comparing the Baltimore Catechism to the Catechism of the Catholic Church -- we should be mindful that, however orthodox the Baltimore Catechism may be, it was a regional product, unlike the universal CCC. Comparisons between the two might do well to keep this difference in mind.