« Wow | Main | Bishop Shot »
July 14, 2005
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
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
Comments
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.
Posted by: William Porter at Jul 15, 2005 12:21:59 AM
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
Posted by: Neil at Jul 15, 2005 1:49:50 AM
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.
Posted by: Jim at Jul 15, 2005 6:44:47 AM
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.
Posted by: Jeff at Jul 15, 2005 6:51:04 AM
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"?
Posted by: francis at Jul 15, 2005 7:31:43 AM
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
Posted by: al at Jul 15, 2005 7:34:06 AM
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.
Posted by: MrsDarwin at Jul 15, 2005 7:39:00 AM
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.
Posted by: WRY at Jul 15, 2005 7:57:38 AM
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.
Posted by: Rod Dreher at Jul 15, 2005 8:09:57 AM
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.
Posted by: tcreek at Jul 15, 2005 8:17:46 AM
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." :)
Posted by: Maureen at Jul 15, 2005 8:28:55 AM
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.
Posted by: Brian Visaggio at Jul 15, 2005 8:32:58 AM
Brian
I think that version reflects an adaptation for the Chaldean church that restored communion with Rome some time ago.
Posted by: Liam at Jul 15, 2005 8:37:35 AM
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.
Posted by: tmatt at Jul 15, 2005 8:40:23 AM
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!
Posted by: Brian at Jul 15, 2005 8:44:57 AM
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?
Posted by: scotch meg at Jul 15, 2005 8:46:43 AM
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.
Posted by: Brian Visaggio at Jul 15, 2005 8:48:06 AM
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.
Posted by: Andrew at Jul 15, 2005 8:55:00 AM
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.
Posted by: c matt at Jul 15, 2005 8:55:48 AM
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!
Posted by: WRY at Jul 15, 2005 8:57:13 AM
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.
Posted by: Ronny at Jul 15, 2005 8:57:39 AM
These seems to be devolving into nipping at each other's ankles.
Posted by: Brian Visaggio at Jul 15, 2005 9:00:28 AM
Brian,
Let's ask whether the Orthodox and Catholics agree on Harry Potter.
;-)
Posted by: WRY at Jul 15, 2005 9:04:28 AM
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?
Posted by: c matt at Jul 15, 2005 9:06:29 AM
Haha!
Or maybe, I dunno, Star Wars?
Revenge of the Sith? Thumbs up? Thumbs down?
Posted by: Brian Visaggio at Jul 15, 2005 9:07:05 AM
