I feel like there's a stumbling block for me here (as a Catholic) in that the insistence of the Orthodox that the faith is entire and complete as is: no further elaboration necessary. I'm no theologian, so maybe I'm putting my foot in my mouth here, but I struggle with the Orthodox not being able to respond to new moral issues as they arise. The primary example for me is contraception. I've heard of Orthodox priests allowing it "in limited circumstances" and Orthodox couples, unable to find clear guidance for discerning it in Orthodoxy, resorting to Catholic teaching and Humane Vitae. Prior to the twentieth century it wasn't an issue: no one thought it was moral. But then there was a bunch of genuine confusion that happened and people needed clarification: Catholics were able to offer it, Orthodox didn't.
I mean, that's probably a gross oversimplification. As I said, I'm no theologian. And yeah, that last apostolic letter from our pope was, bluntly put, a shit show that clarified nothing and added confusion rather than dispelled it. It's a crummy time to be Catholic (and there's been other confusing and crummy times to be Catholic in the past too). But as I wrestle with what the role of the Church is supposed to be, having the ability to respond as a Church to pastoral situations and clarify what the truth is, even if it's currently being misused or neglected by the current papacy, seems an important function to have.
Not trying to pick a fight. I would be interested in your thoughts on that though. It's a big reason I'm still Catholic.
And yeah...I really wish we could get the band back together as a Church too. Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant. Short of a direct intervention from God, I don't see how it'll happen though. Human pride is an awful thing.
Hello Emily. Thanks for the fascinating comment. I would strongly recommend bringing your question about contraception to an Orthodox priest. But I’d like to take a stab about the deeper issue here: the Orthodox Church’s (in)ability to respond to new moral crises.
It seems clear to me that the problems facing the Orthodox Church today are very much “Early Church problems.”
Consider the Arian Crisis of the fourth century. How was it resolved? It wasn’t by papal decree: the papacy was captured by the Arian or Semi-Arian camp. It wasn’t by majority rule: most bishops at one point had succumbed to Arius’s heresy. Rather, as Saint Athanasius himself said: “Let us look at the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, the Apostles preached and the Fathers kept.”
In other words, Athanasius appealed to no authority except the Faith itself. He trusted the Holy Spirit to preserve the truth from error. All the same, he recognized that it was his duty to defend that Orthodoxy, no matter how grievously he suffered (and Athanasius did suffer!). For him, there was no other way.
Take another example: the Council of Chalcedon. Catholic apologists will often bring up this quote because, after Pope Saint Leo weighs in, the council fathers cry: “Peter has spoken through Leo.” They (the Catholic apologists) cite this as an early example of papal infallibility. But look at that passage in context:
“This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo. So taught the Apostles. Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril. Everlasting be the memory of Cyril. Leo and Cyril taught the same thing, anathema to him who does not so believe. This is the true faith. Those of us who are orthodox thus believe. This is the faith of the fathers.”
Clearly, the fathers are not saying that Leo’s word is law. Rather, they’re praising Leo for clearly and eloquently articulating the teachings handed down by Christ to the Apostles. This is not papal unilateralism, much less papal infallibility. It’s Orthodoxy.
It’s true that the papacy makes it easier to produce out answers to new moral problems. The question is, Are these answers correct? Certainly not always. For instance, as Robert Bellarmine points out, Pope Gregory II allowed for bigamy. But then we get into the whole debate over papal infallibility…
I think it’s sufficient to say that if the absence of a supreme, infallible papacy invalidates the Orthodox ecclesiology, then we must say that the whole of the Early Church is invalid. No such authority existed, so far as the Fathers were concerned—none except the Orthodox Catholic Faith itself. Athanasius and Leo and all the great Fathers of the Church simply expected the Holy Spirit to “struggle alongside the Orthodox,” a prayer which the Orthodox renew every day.
Blessed Seraphim Rose put it best, I think:
“There are some who look at our Orthodox Church and say, ‘It’s impossible for people to find truth there. You say you don’t believe in any one pope or bishop, and thus there is no guarantee; you don’t believe in the Scriptures like a Protestant might and say that they are the absolutely “infallible” word. If you have a controversy, where is the final word?’ And we say that the Holy Spirit will reveal Himself. This happens especially when bishops come together in council, but even then there can be a false council. One might then say, “There’s no hope!” But we say that the Holy Spirit guides the Church, and therefore He will not be false to the Church. If you haven’t got the feeling that this is so, then you devise things like making the Bible infallible, making the Pope infallible.”
Now, coming back to the present day. You’re right that, in previous centuries, there was a clear consensus on the permissibility of contraception. There’s no real confusion about what the “traditional position” really is. The question is simply whether or not we obey the Fathers. And I would point out that the same is true of the Catholic Church. Both Churches’ infallible authorities (for Orthodox, the Faith; for Catholics, the Pope) are anti-contraception. Yet Orthodox and Catholics contracept at roughly the same rate. So, the papacy has not spared Catholics the need to struggle against error and sin.
Bear in mind also that ‘Ineffabilius Deus’ and ‘Munificentissimus Deus’—the only two papal documents which the majority of Catholic theologians would call ex cathedra—are both apostolic constituitions. Apostolic constitutions are the weighiest form of papal teaching. ‘Humanae Vitae’ is an encyclical, which is probably the third weightiest. So, Paul VI clearly did not intend for HV to be understood as infallible or ex cathedra. That means Francis or any future pope could revoke or modify its teachings fairly easily. Then where will conservative Catholics be?
As we’re seeing in the wake of ‘Fiducia Supplicans,’ Catholics ultimately are still forced to struggle for the orthodox Faith. The only difference is that, now, they have to struggle against the infallible pope as well. This doesn’t sound like a good deal to me!
The Orthodox way of thinking about theology is difficult for me to wrap my mind around. I've connected deeply with a Western /Thomistic way of seeing theology: very logic based and concrete. In a time (both personally and in general) where everything seems to be shifting and not what it seems, that concreteness has been a lifeline for me. Encountering a faith that doesn't operate that way is difficult for me to accept because of that. It's a huge perspective shift.
My struggle with Pope Francis in particular comes from a similar (but very different in motivation and application) place-- he's not logical, clear, or concrete in what he does or says. From what I understand, there's nothing in the strict "letter of the law" in Fiducia Supplicans that is against what the Church has always taught about marriage -- the problem is in the insinuation, in the tacit approval to "take it and run". What's infallible for me is what's on paper and taught from a place of authority, not what the insinuations may or may not be.
Is that what infallibility is meant to be in the Catholic understanding? That's been my understanding. Maybe it's one I need to research more.
If the Western/Thomistic path brings you closer to God, that's where you need to be... at least for now! I do think the Eastern way is "better" (more authentic, life-giving, etc.). But the Orthodox compare Truth to strong medicine. It needs to be applied in the right way, at the right time.
Say an old man is diagnosed with cancer and needs chemotherapy. Okay. But let's say this old man also has pneumonia. Giving him the chemo right away would probably kill him. Chemo is the right medicine, but NOW isn't the right time. Let him get over his flu; then, once his system is stronger, he'll be able to handle the medicine.
Many Orthodox see the turmoil caused by the Francis papacy and think, "Now's the time to strike!" But, no: now's the time for great gentleness. Many Catholics' systems are weakened by confusion and grief. I have friends who've told me, "If I stopped believinging in Catholicism, I'd lose my faith in Christ." Unfortunately, I have other friends who did abandon the Faith altogether once they became disillusioned even with Catholic traditionalism.
Not saying that's you, of course! But, again, I'm not trying to shake your faith (or anyone else's) either. So, I'm happy to leave the discussion here for now. My email is on the about page but just in case: davismw[at]pm[dot]me. Please feel free to reach out anytime.
The truth of the mater is that there is little real difference between the EO and the RC "on the ground" as far as BC is involved. Both churches still recognize the use of BC as "bad" in an abstract sense. The consensus position in both churches in the confessional is more "pastoral" in approach. You will also find hardliners in both communions. As a former RC now EO, I was told basically the same thing in the confessional w/r/t BC use in both churches. The EO also tend to be more honest about NFP, considering it no different than artificial BC.
As the late Fr Tom Hopko used to say, an honest mess is preferable to false clarity. While the RC (specifically, Rome) has come to understand itself as an answer machine of sorts, it should be clear that this power frequently does more harm than good.
As someone who's used NFP for years and heard from many who have used BC then switched, I'd fundamentally disagree that it's the same as birth control. Even if it's sinful, it's so fundamentally different in application that it'd have to be a different type of sinful action that BC is ( I actually researched the differences in Evangelical Protestant (a Christian population that widely accepts birth control) and popular orthodox Catholic attitudes towards sex in their popular writings. The differences are pretty darn evident; the attitudes of the two towards what sex is for are very different. The article is on my Substack).
When an RC priest is "pastoral" in confession when it comes to BC and says it's ok to use it, he's going against Church teaching and what he's doing is considered a sin (for him, not necessarily for the person acting on his advice in good faith). If an Orthodox priest is "pastoral" in the same way, is it considered wrong on his part? That's the difference I'm describing.
I'm not convinced that the definitive power of Rome DOES do more harm than good (hence my asking questions here). Yes, the papacy is currently being very confusing, but I'd need way more support for that statement to find it convincing.
This is a very good point- much as their effects may look the same 'on the ground', there is a real difference between widely tolerated hypocrisy and actual, official allowance. At least for someone like me (and like yourself) who puts stock in the 'letter'.
I think it’s important to point out that elaboration and development are two different things entirely. Elaboration would be what we see in for example the Council of Nicaea, it was not called to develop the Doctrine of the Deity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, but to explicate it in the face of the grave error of Arianism. Development would be what we see in things like Dictatus Papae (1075) where we see the Bishop of Rome move from a place of Ecclesiastical Primacy with defined geographical limits laid out in the Ecumenically accepted Councils too the frankly outlandish claims that he can depose any ecclesiastical or secular ruler and that “(8) He alone may use the Imperial Insignia.
(9) All princes shall kiss the feet of the Pope alone.
(10) His name alone shall be spoken in the churches.
(11) This is the only name in the world”.
I’ve heard this argument before about things like contraception and such, and I certainly empathize with where it’s coming from, but I would emphasize the point Mr.Davis makes. That we ought to allow the Holy Spirit to work through the Church as He always has, through the consent of the Church Universal (the gathering of the Synods over time) rather than deferring to human wisdom to obtain an expedient resolution.
Isn't the Holy Spirit working through the Church Universal/Synods also Him working through human wisdom though?
I'm thinking of the canon of Scripture, which was decided by the bishops/patriarchs before the schism. That was the Holy Spirit working through human beings making decisions, including the choice to include some books but not others.
I struggle to see how the Orthodox position isn't the Catholic position, but in slower motion. Is it different primarily in that it's less centralized? Is it because the philosophical framework for theological concepts is different? And if something really is inherently dangerous to souls, isn't an expedient resolution sometimes needed?
I see your point about the papacy specifically. I'm not familiar enough with the theological positions behind it to offer you anything approaching a refute on the level it deserves (any apologetic training I have is for dealing with Protestant objections, which is a very different set), but I will say I see how it's a turn off and I wouldn't deny that political, rather than theological, motivations may very well have had a hand in it (though I'd also say God often mercifully works through our sinful stupidity and that doesn't necessarily render it an invalid position).
Orthodox Christian here. From what I understand, in Finland, the church wasn't forced to celebrate Easter the same day as the western churches, but the government said they would give the Orthodox Church status of a national recognized church (even with its small number of adherents in Finland) if, in a sign of Christian unity, Easter could be celebrated together. If that's the case, it's certainly not the same thing as being forced, and the agreement to this arrangement by the Orthodox demonstrates that the calendar issue is not necessarily one of doctrine (i.e. there is no "sacred calendar").
The first Easter was, by our calendar and correlating a number of "datable events" in the scriptures and extra-biblical writings of the 1st century April 8 30 AD. The church, inconsistently decided to celebrate the nativity of our Lord on the calendar day, not the Sunday (the date being an argument about the date of Good Friday, whether it was April 6 30 AD or March 25. The orthodox have always been correct about the date of Good Friday, BTW). Easter the Nicene fathers felt should be always on a Sunday (and not without reason). To be somewhat consistent, we should celebrate Easter on the Sunday closest to April 8. This would be an admission that neither East nor West was entirely consistent and sensible on Paschal celebrations and we could all move forward this way and be more historically accurate, for what it's worth.
I do believe the original Celtic churches of Ireland and Britain originally used the Julian calendar, but were likewise bullied by the Catholics to relent to supposed Roman primacy.
There was a discrepancy, but it was a different one. This was a thousand years before there was a Gregorian calendar. Everyone was using some form of the Julian calendar, but different formulas. I think Quartodecimanism was lurking in the background, but it was not directly that. But Rome and Constantinople matched and the Celtics would have been different from both.
Loved this piece. By the way, is there an article you can link to about Elias Chacour's decision to celebrate Pascha on the Julian calendar? I'd like to read more about that.
Thank you for this well-rounded explanation. I had not heard of the “Ecclesiastical Full Moon” — I had been told that the Orthodox calculation also took into account the Jewish Passover which Pascha could not precede. Does that amount to the same thing in practice?
Hey there so the point about Pascha needing to happen after Passover is actually a common misconception. Rather than explain the misconception I'll just provide 2017 as an example of this. That year, Orthodox Easter was April 16 while the Jewish Passover began on April 10 and ended on April 18.
That's right. There was/is also a misconception that Christians may not celebrate Holy Pascha at the same time as the Jewish Pascha. That's also incorrect. The calculation of Easter can't be influenced by Jewish Passover one way or the other.
It seems to me to be an issue of the spirit of the law vs. the letter. And maybe unusually, the West, often accused of being legalistic, is on the side of the spirit. The Council of Nicaea was trying to set an Easter that would take place in early spring. Julian March 21 was not a sacred date but where the real equinox happened to be at the time. An Easter that often occurs in (Gregorian) May was not the Council would have wanted. Christmas and the Nativity of John the Baptist ("he must increase and I must decrease") also have imagery grounded in being close to the real solstices.
I am not saying we should base everything on the weather. After all, Southern Hemisphereans, including Pope Francis himself when he was Bergoglio, experience March and April and May as fall months. But it is a factor. I would assume (but who knows?) that the Second Coming will have occurred well before then, but if there is still a world in thousands of years, Julian Easter will have wandered into Gregorian June and July.
Also, even if they may be less close theologically, in a country like the U.S., Protestants have to be taken into account. Albeit it would be humorous if they were the last adherents of a papal calendar they were once also very stubborn in refusing to adopt.
To which the Orthodox reply, "Therefore the idea that lay at the foundation of the Gregorian reforms, according to which Pascha can only be a spring holy day celebrated inalterably after the astronomical spring equinox, is based upon false premises. Nowhere in the Holy Scripture is there anything about the spring equinox, nor does it say anywhere in Holy Scripture that Pascha is a seasonal feast. The Jewish Pascha is, in fact, a seasonal holy day, connected with the agricultural cycle. But what is Christian Pascha? It is the remembrance of the Savior’s resurrection. It has no relationship to astronomical cycles or the rising of the moon and stars." ("On the Julian Calendar, Church Tradition, and Standing for the Faith" by Pavel Kuzenkov)
Michael, you hold forth contradictions here! Pascha cannot, at the same time, both "have no relationship to astronomical cycles or ... the moon" and also be fixed by the Nicene Fathers on the first Sunday after the first full moon after the vernal equinox.
Why do Protestant heretics need to be accounted for in anything? Those who deny the Faith should be called anathema and then ignored unless they give up their false teachings.
My question still stands, why should we care what heretics do? Rome is heterodox but does not deny the Faith as taught by the Seven Ecumenical Councils ergo they can and should be met with, with the hope that they will awaken from the slumber that they are in and return to the fold. Protestants deny teachings from those same Councils. They are heretics and ought to be called out as heretics, anathematized and then ignored.
"He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, 'This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.'"
The problem here is that the Orthodox have the slightly troubling tendency to make out human traditions to be quasi (or completely) divine. This sort of ecclesial chauvinism (somewhat exacerbated by our ritual homogeneity and tendency towards ethnophyletism) means that we get a mindset of "our way or the highway"—it's not so much a principled defense of truth as a strict adherence to a sense of prideful superiority.
The Julian calendar is not an essential part of the Tradition — it's just the old secular calendar of the Empire conveniently adopted by the Church. Our rather inaccurate comptus for computing moon phases certainly isn't either. We are behaving in an expressly uncanonical manner by celebrating Easter in this way, as, whether one likes it or not, about half of the time our Easter is not on the first Sunday after the first full moon of spring. The best solution, as has been proposed many times, would probably be to use modern astronomy to compute Easter precisely, taking the location of Jerusalem for the precise times of the equinox and full moon. This could be accurately predicted out around 4,000 years in the future by anybody with a little know-how and a laptop computer. But what can one say? To quote a certain old sinner, "the fools would rather disagree with the Sun than agree with the Pope."
As for the changing of doctrine, this has occurred; even Trinitarianism is a 'development.' It's because the Eastern Roman Empire was so fecund for theological diversity that, as a back-reaction, our liturgies are so intensely Trinitarian, Chalcedonian, and iconophilic. History is not kind to the common stories the Orthodox and Catholics tell about themselves; a coherent understanding of this is a task for more learned men than I!
If the Orthodox dating of Easter is “expressly noncanonical” then every single one of the men who wrote those canons also violated the same canons year after year after year.
But this brings us to another important question. Why the mania for a common Easter? It’s far less consequential than the theological and ecclesiological differences between the RCC and EOC, as evidenced by the fact that not all RCs follow the Gregorian Calendar and not all EOs follow the Julian.
The RCC wants to find a “third way” on Easter for the same reason it has adopted an indifferentist position on the Filioque: it knows the popes of old badly overstepped their authority but they won’t admit they were wrong. They want to move on without admitting fault. Or when they say, “We’re sorry for condemning you to Hell for not following our arbitrary whims,” they want the EO to reply, “And we’re sorry for not following your arbitrary whims.”
The EO are not going to do that. And they don’t mind having a charitable disagreement with the RCC over these matters. The trouble is that RCs are not civil. Hence, “The fools would rather disagree with the Sun than agree with the Pope.”
It’s deeply pathological behavior. RCs seem to have a deep, one-sided need for EO approval; when they don’t get it, they become insulting and issue heavy-handed condemnations. I do believe it comes of knowing there are not, in fact, “Good arguments on both sides”—that the good arguments belong to the EOC.
But if you really think that intercommunion is more important than unity of faith, you can look forward to the German bishops allowing Lutherans to receive the Eucharist.
Bu the way, it really is a scandal that RCs refer to the Trinity as a developed doctrine. The Fathers were very clear that it is not. For instance, Saint Basil:
“We are therefore bound to confess the Son to be of one substance with the Father, as it is written; but the Father to exist in His own proper hypostasis, the Son in His, and the Holy Ghost in His, as they themselves have clearly delivered the doctrine. They indeed clearly and satisfactorily declared in the words Light of Light, that the Light which begat and the Light which was begotten, are distinct, and yet Light and Light; so that the definition of the Substance is one and the same.”
They declared it, meaning the Persons of the Trinity. Basil is clearly condemning those who say that the Trinity is anything less than evident in Divine Relevation. He then goes on to say,
“Both men whose minds have been preoccupied by a heterodox creed and now wish to change over to the congregation of the orthodox, and also those who are now for the first time desirous of being instructed in the doctrine of truth, must be taught the creed drawn up by the blessed fathers in the Council which met at Nicaea.”
I did not say that the Orthodox method is uncanonical in se (it, at the time, determined all the requisite astronomical variables to the highest accuracy then attainable) — I said that we are *behaving uncanonically* by using a method that is now terribly inaccurate, which results in us celebrating Easter on the wrong day more often than not.
Yes, the Latin Church is like that. "We may not be right, but we are never wrong." Then again, as Met. Kallistos Ware (memory eternal!) said, our motto in turn is "never explain, never apologize" — we, too, are not perfect.
Whoever said anything about intercommunion? I would only ever even consider communing in an Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, or Assyrian church, because the faith is the same. (Well, I suppose in a Catholic or orthodox Anglican church as well, if I could make it work intellectually; but all of this is conjectural, anyways).
St. Basil was one of the theologians who formed the theology of the Trinity. Before this, educated Christians, like most everybody, held to a schema where the utterly transcendent God, the apex of 'the chain of being,' interacts with and creates the world through lesser manifestations of the Divinity. St. Justin Martyr demonstrates this very clearly, but it's evident all over the ante-Nicene period. The Cappadocian Fathers, amongst others, brilliantly saw that Christian soteriology necessarily implies the doctrine of the Trinity, or we cannot be saved — and in doing so, cut down the chain of being and, for the first time in Western history, dictated a proper understanding of divine transcendence. Their achievement is singularly remarkable and deserves commendation, but it was the achievement of daring theologians, not taciturn expositors. St. Maximos was tortured for "not accepting the words as they are" of the councils. And so on.
[But, for goodness's sake, St. Basil himself refused to call the Holy Spirit God (ὁ θεός; ho theos) because it was untraditional. As for his final quote, the original Nicene Creed itself condemns and anathematizes anybody who says that the Father and Son are of different ousia *or hypostasis* (they were, of course, roughly synonymous, meaning "essense" and "substance"/"subsistence", respectively, but nevertheless), which he himself had just done.]
My apologies, John, for assuming you were RC... not that there's anything wrong with that. ;-)
You say:
<<I did not say that the Orthodox method is uncanonical in se (it, at the time, determined all the requisite astronomical variables to the highest accuracy then attainable) — I said that we are *behaving uncanonically* by using a method that is now terribly inaccurate, which results in us celebrating Easter on the wrong day more often than not.>>
As I tried to make clear in the article, I don't think the date itself is of vital importance. EOs could adopt the Gregorian Calendar tomorrow and it would change nothing. Heck, RCs could adopt the Julian Calendar tomorrow and it would change nothing. My aim, rather, was to explain how the calendar points to the deeper division between the two communions.
Finding a common date for the celebration of Easter would probably do nothing more than paper over those differences. I believe that's often the exact intention of many unionist Orthodox, about whom Saint Paisios of Mount Athos said:
<<With sadness I must write that among all the "unionists" I’ve met, never have I seen them to have either a drop or shred of spirituality. Nevertheless, they know how to speak about love and union while they themselves are not united with God, for they have not loved Him.>>
I can't argue with Saint Paisios, if only because I've never met an Orthodox unionist. However, I've met many Catholic unionists, and I believe the inverse is true. In my experience, it's precisely the most prayerful RCs who long to be united with the EOs. For whatever it's worth.
There is a sort of ecumenism that is not born of love but indifference — there is no real care for truth or God, so differences come to seem irrelevant. Of course, there is also the other sort — the one that sees Christ in all people, and reaches out to "labour, striving according to his working, which worketh in me mightily" to heal the wrongs we've wrought.
In any case, please forgive my acerbity above, and may God bless you.
Nearly everything in this article that isn't a direct quotation is a contested point: your understanding of the development of doctrine (which somehow the Orthodox are exempt from even though Latin terms of development like 'transubstantiation' are borrowed in Orthodox conciliar definitions), the orthodoxy of the Filioque (which even the Greek fathers taught: https://www.youtube.com/live/WBUJsMR9Vqo) and the validity of its insertion into the Creed (which was added to at Constantinople I, even though it shouldn't ever be changed), the "humanism" of Trent (what even is that supposed to mean?), etc.
The point of 'Julian or Gregorian?' in this article is a sprig of garnish on top of a plate of usual Eastern Orthodox talking points.
I (a Roman Catholic) have to push back on this statement or at least demand some more nuance:
"Likewise, the Orthodox Church anathematizes those who are not content with “a pure and simple faith”—and so, by “sophistic demonstration,” misconstrue Church teachings “according to their own way of thinking, and to present them according to their own opinion.”
My main point of disagreement with your presentation of the issue is that it sets up a double standard: The East counts adheres to a "pure and simple faith" but the West tends to "sophistic demonstration." But what counts as a "pure and simple faith"? Who decides what is "sophistic demonstration"? I, obviously, am totally opposed to anyone who uses philosophy to twist Christ's sacred doctrine as found in the Bible and Sacred Tradition. However, both East and West accept, and indeed, have dogmatized certain philosophical concepts that are not clearly found in Scripture or the earliest Fathers. For instance, both the Chalcedonian East and West, in settling the early Christological issues, speak of an important distinction between "person" (hypostasis) and "nature" (ousia). Why is that not sophistic demonstration? Because both East and West agree that it isn't?
The Eastern Orthodox probably regard Western theological arguments regarding grace and predestination as an example of the subtleties of philosophy undermining the pure and simple faith--and maybe they have a point, since the Congregatio de Auxiliis famously never resolved the dispute between the Dominicans and the Jesuits but simply ordered an end to the controversy. However--and this is particularly timely since those following the Julian calendar would have just celebrated the Sunday of St. Gregory Palamas--the Eastern distinctions between essences and energies would strike Latin Catholics as too dependent on particular philosophical presuppositions and not obviously found in the early Fathers (this point is separate from any substantive disagreements regarding hesychasm between East and West). So, why is it wrong for Western scholastics to argue about sanctifying, actual, efficacious grace, etc., but alright for Eastern monks to elaborate theories of energies and essences?
You have raised a real question and you are not entirely wrong that there is a difference in emphasis between East and West. But the East's approach has not been entirely that of a "pure and simple faith," if by pure and simple we mean "free of extra-Scriptural philosophical argumentation."
You're not wrong at all! We have to use language in order to communicate our ideas, and that sometimes includes the language of philosophy. The question (again) is whether we're trying to preserve the teachings handed down by Christ to the Apostles, or whether we're trying to illuminate new truths which (at least to our minds) follow automatically from certain points of revelation and/or logical inferences.
Let me use an example from the article. We all agree that Mary is immaculate. The question is, was she immaculate from her conception, as Duns Scotus argued? Or was she immaculate from her birth, as Aquinas argued? There are very good arguments on both sides; there are also very good arguments for alternative theories.
The sensible thing, I should think, is to leave that all alone. Let academics continue to argue if they want, but allow the common people to absent themselves. But Rome feels the need to give dogmatic answers to every question posed by theologians.
I agree, we can sometimes overemphasize the difference between the Orthodox and Catholic approaches to theology. But there is a substantial difference.
All these questions and opinions and declarations of men/women… but no one has suggested what God has said (or says)( He still speaks John 16- Holy Spirit ‘s ministry. James says that we should ‘ask’ Godard He will give us all the wisdom we need (or want).
Excellent explanation of some complex history. If I recall correctly, you are Eastern Catholic (Mekite perhaps?), correct? If so, have you ever written or spoken on why you went that route vs Eastern Orthodoxy? I'd be curious to read/listen if you have.
An interesting essay, Michael, both thoughtful and thought-provoking; though not wholly agreeable to this Latin! However, given the oceans of ink spilled by men holier and wiser than both of us (from east and west alike), I'll offer just two wry observations.
First, your phrase "without addition or subtraction" is nearly identical with that used by Polycrates and the Asian bishops in their letter to Victor of Rome . . . defending Quartodecimanism: "We observe the exact day; neither adding, nor taking away" (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History V, 24, 2).
Second, if indeed the filioque was first inserted into the creed at Toledo III (a controverted point) -- well, that council was presided over by Leander of Seville, whom you remember at the altar on February 27. Not that this "proves" the filioque, of course; it merely suggests that the filioque hardly offended the sensibilities of many pious Latins.
Well, I wish you a fruitful Great Fast and a blessed Pascha, when at last it dawns (for you!).
Hello Philip! Thanks for your thought-provoking comment.
I'm sure you're right about Polycrates & Co. However, the misapplication of a principle does not invalidate the principle itself. What's interesting to me is that the Asian bishops believed the principle was sound, and assumed that Pope Victor would as well. They assumed that Victor was also a "conservative"—that, if they could establish Quartodecimanism as the practice handed down by the Apostles, they would carry the debate. I don't know what Victor said in reply, but I'd bet money it wasn't: "Well, I'm the infallible pope, so what I say goes." ;-)
Thanks for being here! Latins are always welcome here, and their thoughts warmly welcomed. Happy Easter to you and yours!
Victor? Oh, he tried to excommunicate them all, but Irenaeus (who had a connection with Asia) talked him down, reminding him that his predecessors had long accepted the difference, and that one of them (Anicetus) had even communed with Polycarp when the latter visited Rome, despite an express controversy over this matter in that earlier time.
The epistolary fragments preserved by Eusebius are well worth reading:
“So the Schism was caused by an overweening pope unilaterally introducing practices which originated, not in the Apostolic Treasury spoken of by Irenaeus, but in the academic debates of court theologians.” I (a Catholic) find this reasoning very curious. Couldn’t this argument be applied to the Arian, Christological, Iconoclast, or any of the other patristic controversies the resolution of which the Orthodox accept? Irenaeus himself misused “ousia” and “hypostasis” by the lights modern Orthodoxy. Far be it from me to disagree with adherence to tradition for its own sake, but if you need to add some additional justification by huffing that Catholics keep trying to use scholarship to adjust the apostolic deposit you must also throw out the ecumenical councils as well.
Regarding Arianism, St. Basil points out in his 125th letter that God reveals Himself as three Persons/one Divinity in Holy Scripture. Regarding icons, they were in use from the earlest days of the Christian Church; I would recommend reading Craig Truglia's article "Ante-Nicene Iconodulia in Plain Sight."
That's not to say that some Early Christians—indeed, some Church Fathers!—didn't occasionally get the details wrong. Indeed, the Councils were called precisely to clarify the finer points.
Yet this doesn't mean that God's trinitarian nature was merely a theory before the Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople. We can't say it was okay to profess Arianism before the Council because the doctrine had yet to be fully developed. No: the orthodox Fathers speak of Arius as a malicious heretic, a faithless usurper, etc. They clearly believed that the doctrine of the Trinity (if not the word "Trinity") was handed down by the Apostoles. And so it was!
Thank you for the recommended reading on icons, I wasn’t aware of that perspective so I am interested to check it out! However, I fear I was not clear in the parallel I am attempting to draw between modern and patristic doctrinal controversy. My understanding of the position you have articulated is the following: you accept terminological development, but that is of a different kind than doctrinal development which is characterized by the elevation of theological theory to divine revelation.
So far so good. The question then is what distinguishes a terminological development from a doctrinal one. At first blush it should be straightforwardly the difference between introducing a new term to clarify or better articulate an old idea and adopting a new idea to fill in a perceived gap in revelation. I would argue this explanation fails to hold up to scrutiny.
Lets take the immaculate conception and Trinitarian controversy. Suppose they are a doctrinal and terminological development respectively. How would we expect them to differ? The obvious answer is you would expect additional metaphysical baggage absent the original formulation. But of course we see this in both cases. The early church developed an entire metaphysics to explain the how the structure of the godhead is coherent and debates about the details spanned literally hundreds of years. You can say it boiled down to the apostolic revelation that God is three in one. No argument here, but then on what basis do you deny this type of explanation of the immaculate conception? As you note, the orthodox affirm Mary’s sinlessness, so thats part of the deposit of faith. Now, just as for Jesus to truly be God, he must actually BE God, For Mary to be immaculate in any non-trivial way, she must have always been immaculate (otherwise its an empty honorific because everyone is eventually made sinless just as it wpuld be for Jesus to be called God without being God). Ironically (at least in the case of Aquinas) that part of the theology wasnt at issue. Rather Aquinas disagreed with the Immaculate Conception because of his biology. He followed aristotle thinking the seed came from the man, and Joachim’s seed transmitted the sin of Adam, whereas in the incarnation Christ was incarnated by the Holy Spirit as a new Adam and therefore even his matter was never from a sinful person.Thomas though the soul informed the body at quickening rather than conception so Mary couldnt have been immaculate prior to existing. Thats not a deep theological disagreement.
The simple response to this is to reply that we have added something after all— the scientific knowledge of how pregnancy works. How dare we? But the easy response to this is that if this is the issue we ought to also condemn the fathers for their reliance on Neo-Platonic philosophy to formulate the trinity. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander. I am fairly confident there is no way to parse the distinction without begging the question.
To sum up, both doctrines required additional metaphysical theory to explain a simple, ex hypothesi apostolic idea. Both made use of non-revealed concepts developed after revelation had ceased. There was actually much more intense controversy and disagreement surrounding the doctrine that supposedly did not develop, and so I truly don’t see how the two can be properly distinguished. I suppose you could say that the Immaculate conception relies on a flawed theory of grace, but the Arian might have said the same thing about the fathers’ theory of God. Finally, the actual binding part of the doctrine doesn’t actually depend on you conception if grace, so that objection is irrelevant.
What I fear is being undermined here is that there are legitimate criticisms of how the west approaches theology, but the development of doctrine aint one. Anyone who believes in the deposit of faith has to have an explanation for how novel expressions of the faith can come about, because its a historical fact that they did.
Thank you for your thoughtful answe! As a rule of thumb, the Orthodox would say: If you were to describe a principle to the Church Fathers, and their consensus would not be affirmative (i.e., if they rejected the principle, or plead ignorance, or were simply indifferent to the question), then we are talking about a Newmanesque development of doctrine—not the refinement of doctrinal terminology. Of course, you may still believe in Newman's theory. But there *is* a meaningful difference between the development of doctrine and the refinement of terminology.
Incidentally, both Pius IX in 'Pastor Aeternus' and Pius XI in 'Pascendi Dominici Gregis' agree with the Orthodox. Both popes rule out the possibility of the development of doctrine—of a change in our fundamental understanding of the Christian Faith. They insist that the doctrines of papal infallibility and papal supremacy have been known to all right-believing Christians since the very origins of the Church.
They were wrong about that, of course—a fact that even the Vatican now acknowledges (cf., the 'Chieti Document'). But like the Orthodox, the Popes Pius profess the CONSERVATION of doctrine, not the DEVELOPMENT of doctrine. That's why it took so long to canonize Newman despite his heroic virtue, and why he's still viewed with suspicion by many traditionalist Catholics. He was, by the standards of his time, a Modernist. The development of doctrine is Modernism.
Good food for thought here.
I feel like there's a stumbling block for me here (as a Catholic) in that the insistence of the Orthodox that the faith is entire and complete as is: no further elaboration necessary. I'm no theologian, so maybe I'm putting my foot in my mouth here, but I struggle with the Orthodox not being able to respond to new moral issues as they arise. The primary example for me is contraception. I've heard of Orthodox priests allowing it "in limited circumstances" and Orthodox couples, unable to find clear guidance for discerning it in Orthodoxy, resorting to Catholic teaching and Humane Vitae. Prior to the twentieth century it wasn't an issue: no one thought it was moral. But then there was a bunch of genuine confusion that happened and people needed clarification: Catholics were able to offer it, Orthodox didn't.
I mean, that's probably a gross oversimplification. As I said, I'm no theologian. And yeah, that last apostolic letter from our pope was, bluntly put, a shit show that clarified nothing and added confusion rather than dispelled it. It's a crummy time to be Catholic (and there's been other confusing and crummy times to be Catholic in the past too). But as I wrestle with what the role of the Church is supposed to be, having the ability to respond as a Church to pastoral situations and clarify what the truth is, even if it's currently being misused or neglected by the current papacy, seems an important function to have.
Not trying to pick a fight. I would be interested in your thoughts on that though. It's a big reason I'm still Catholic.
And yeah...I really wish we could get the band back together as a Church too. Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant. Short of a direct intervention from God, I don't see how it'll happen though. Human pride is an awful thing.
Hello Emily. Thanks for the fascinating comment. I would strongly recommend bringing your question about contraception to an Orthodox priest. But I’d like to take a stab about the deeper issue here: the Orthodox Church’s (in)ability to respond to new moral crises.
It seems clear to me that the problems facing the Orthodox Church today are very much “Early Church problems.”
Consider the Arian Crisis of the fourth century. How was it resolved? It wasn’t by papal decree: the papacy was captured by the Arian or Semi-Arian camp. It wasn’t by majority rule: most bishops at one point had succumbed to Arius’s heresy. Rather, as Saint Athanasius himself said: “Let us look at the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, the Apostles preached and the Fathers kept.”
In other words, Athanasius appealed to no authority except the Faith itself. He trusted the Holy Spirit to preserve the truth from error. All the same, he recognized that it was his duty to defend that Orthodoxy, no matter how grievously he suffered (and Athanasius did suffer!). For him, there was no other way.
Take another example: the Council of Chalcedon. Catholic apologists will often bring up this quote because, after Pope Saint Leo weighs in, the council fathers cry: “Peter has spoken through Leo.” They (the Catholic apologists) cite this as an early example of papal infallibility. But look at that passage in context:
“This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo. So taught the Apostles. Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril. Everlasting be the memory of Cyril. Leo and Cyril taught the same thing, anathema to him who does not so believe. This is the true faith. Those of us who are orthodox thus believe. This is the faith of the fathers.”
Clearly, the fathers are not saying that Leo’s word is law. Rather, they’re praising Leo for clearly and eloquently articulating the teachings handed down by Christ to the Apostles. This is not papal unilateralism, much less papal infallibility. It’s Orthodoxy.
It’s true that the papacy makes it easier to produce out answers to new moral problems. The question is, Are these answers correct? Certainly not always. For instance, as Robert Bellarmine points out, Pope Gregory II allowed for bigamy. But then we get into the whole debate over papal infallibility…
I think it’s sufficient to say that if the absence of a supreme, infallible papacy invalidates the Orthodox ecclesiology, then we must say that the whole of the Early Church is invalid. No such authority existed, so far as the Fathers were concerned—none except the Orthodox Catholic Faith itself. Athanasius and Leo and all the great Fathers of the Church simply expected the Holy Spirit to “struggle alongside the Orthodox,” a prayer which the Orthodox renew every day.
Blessed Seraphim Rose put it best, I think:
“There are some who look at our Orthodox Church and say, ‘It’s impossible for people to find truth there. You say you don’t believe in any one pope or bishop, and thus there is no guarantee; you don’t believe in the Scriptures like a Protestant might and say that they are the absolutely “infallible” word. If you have a controversy, where is the final word?’ And we say that the Holy Spirit will reveal Himself. This happens especially when bishops come together in council, but even then there can be a false council. One might then say, “There’s no hope!” But we say that the Holy Spirit guides the Church, and therefore He will not be false to the Church. If you haven’t got the feeling that this is so, then you devise things like making the Bible infallible, making the Pope infallible.”
Now, coming back to the present day. You’re right that, in previous centuries, there was a clear consensus on the permissibility of contraception. There’s no real confusion about what the “traditional position” really is. The question is simply whether or not we obey the Fathers. And I would point out that the same is true of the Catholic Church. Both Churches’ infallible authorities (for Orthodox, the Faith; for Catholics, the Pope) are anti-contraception. Yet Orthodox and Catholics contracept at roughly the same rate. So, the papacy has not spared Catholics the need to struggle against error and sin.
Bear in mind also that ‘Ineffabilius Deus’ and ‘Munificentissimus Deus’—the only two papal documents which the majority of Catholic theologians would call ex cathedra—are both apostolic constituitions. Apostolic constitutions are the weighiest form of papal teaching. ‘Humanae Vitae’ is an encyclical, which is probably the third weightiest. So, Paul VI clearly did not intend for HV to be understood as infallible or ex cathedra. That means Francis or any future pope could revoke or modify its teachings fairly easily. Then where will conservative Catholics be?
As we’re seeing in the wake of ‘Fiducia Supplicans,’ Catholics ultimately are still forced to struggle for the orthodox Faith. The only difference is that, now, they have to struggle against the infallible pope as well. This doesn’t sound like a good deal to me!
Thank you for your thoughtful response!
The Orthodox way of thinking about theology is difficult for me to wrap my mind around. I've connected deeply with a Western /Thomistic way of seeing theology: very logic based and concrete. In a time (both personally and in general) where everything seems to be shifting and not what it seems, that concreteness has been a lifeline for me. Encountering a faith that doesn't operate that way is difficult for me to accept because of that. It's a huge perspective shift.
My struggle with Pope Francis in particular comes from a similar (but very different in motivation and application) place-- he's not logical, clear, or concrete in what he does or says. From what I understand, there's nothing in the strict "letter of the law" in Fiducia Supplicans that is against what the Church has always taught about marriage -- the problem is in the insinuation, in the tacit approval to "take it and run". What's infallible for me is what's on paper and taught from a place of authority, not what the insinuations may or may not be.
Is that what infallibility is meant to be in the Catholic understanding? That's been my understanding. Maybe it's one I need to research more.
If the Western/Thomistic path brings you closer to God, that's where you need to be... at least for now! I do think the Eastern way is "better" (more authentic, life-giving, etc.). But the Orthodox compare Truth to strong medicine. It needs to be applied in the right way, at the right time.
Say an old man is diagnosed with cancer and needs chemotherapy. Okay. But let's say this old man also has pneumonia. Giving him the chemo right away would probably kill him. Chemo is the right medicine, but NOW isn't the right time. Let him get over his flu; then, once his system is stronger, he'll be able to handle the medicine.
Many Orthodox see the turmoil caused by the Francis papacy and think, "Now's the time to strike!" But, no: now's the time for great gentleness. Many Catholics' systems are weakened by confusion and grief. I have friends who've told me, "If I stopped believinging in Catholicism, I'd lose my faith in Christ." Unfortunately, I have other friends who did abandon the Faith altogether once they became disillusioned even with Catholic traditionalism.
Not saying that's you, of course! But, again, I'm not trying to shake your faith (or anyone else's) either. So, I'm happy to leave the discussion here for now. My email is on the about page but just in case: davismw[at]pm[dot]me. Please feel free to reach out anytime.
The truth of the mater is that there is little real difference between the EO and the RC "on the ground" as far as BC is involved. Both churches still recognize the use of BC as "bad" in an abstract sense. The consensus position in both churches in the confessional is more "pastoral" in approach. You will also find hardliners in both communions. As a former RC now EO, I was told basically the same thing in the confessional w/r/t BC use in both churches. The EO also tend to be more honest about NFP, considering it no different than artificial BC.
As the late Fr Tom Hopko used to say, an honest mess is preferable to false clarity. While the RC (specifically, Rome) has come to understand itself as an answer machine of sorts, it should be clear that this power frequently does more harm than good.
As someone who's used NFP for years and heard from many who have used BC then switched, I'd fundamentally disagree that it's the same as birth control. Even if it's sinful, it's so fundamentally different in application that it'd have to be a different type of sinful action that BC is ( I actually researched the differences in Evangelical Protestant (a Christian population that widely accepts birth control) and popular orthodox Catholic attitudes towards sex in their popular writings. The differences are pretty darn evident; the attitudes of the two towards what sex is for are very different. The article is on my Substack).
When an RC priest is "pastoral" in confession when it comes to BC and says it's ok to use it, he's going against Church teaching and what he's doing is considered a sin (for him, not necessarily for the person acting on his advice in good faith). If an Orthodox priest is "pastoral" in the same way, is it considered wrong on his part? That's the difference I'm describing.
I'm not convinced that the definitive power of Rome DOES do more harm than good (hence my asking questions here). Yes, the papacy is currently being very confusing, but I'd need way more support for that statement to find it convincing.
This is a very good point- much as their effects may look the same 'on the ground', there is a real difference between widely tolerated hypocrisy and actual, official allowance. At least for someone like me (and like yourself) who puts stock in the 'letter'.
I think it’s important to point out that elaboration and development are two different things entirely. Elaboration would be what we see in for example the Council of Nicaea, it was not called to develop the Doctrine of the Deity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, but to explicate it in the face of the grave error of Arianism. Development would be what we see in things like Dictatus Papae (1075) where we see the Bishop of Rome move from a place of Ecclesiastical Primacy with defined geographical limits laid out in the Ecumenically accepted Councils too the frankly outlandish claims that he can depose any ecclesiastical or secular ruler and that “(8) He alone may use the Imperial Insignia.
(9) All princes shall kiss the feet of the Pope alone.
(10) His name alone shall be spoken in the churches.
(11) This is the only name in the world”.
I’ve heard this argument before about things like contraception and such, and I certainly empathize with where it’s coming from, but I would emphasize the point Mr.Davis makes. That we ought to allow the Holy Spirit to work through the Church as He always has, through the consent of the Church Universal (the gathering of the Synods over time) rather than deferring to human wisdom to obtain an expedient resolution.
Isn't the Holy Spirit working through the Church Universal/Synods also Him working through human wisdom though?
I'm thinking of the canon of Scripture, which was decided by the bishops/patriarchs before the schism. That was the Holy Spirit working through human beings making decisions, including the choice to include some books but not others.
I struggle to see how the Orthodox position isn't the Catholic position, but in slower motion. Is it different primarily in that it's less centralized? Is it because the philosophical framework for theological concepts is different? And if something really is inherently dangerous to souls, isn't an expedient resolution sometimes needed?
I see your point about the papacy specifically. I'm not familiar enough with the theological positions behind it to offer you anything approaching a refute on the level it deserves (any apologetic training I have is for dealing with Protestant objections, which is a very different set), but I will say I see how it's a turn off and I wouldn't deny that political, rather than theological, motivations may very well have had a hand in it (though I'd also say God often mercifully works through our sinful stupidity and that doesn't necessarily render it an invalid position).
Orthodox Christian here. From what I understand, in Finland, the church wasn't forced to celebrate Easter the same day as the western churches, but the government said they would give the Orthodox Church status of a national recognized church (even with its small number of adherents in Finland) if, in a sign of Christian unity, Easter could be celebrated together. If that's the case, it's certainly not the same thing as being forced, and the agreement to this arrangement by the Orthodox demonstrates that the calendar issue is not necessarily one of doctrine (i.e. there is no "sacred calendar").
Thanks for the clarification Katja!
The first Easter was, by our calendar and correlating a number of "datable events" in the scriptures and extra-biblical writings of the 1st century April 8 30 AD. The church, inconsistently decided to celebrate the nativity of our Lord on the calendar day, not the Sunday (the date being an argument about the date of Good Friday, whether it was April 6 30 AD or March 25. The orthodox have always been correct about the date of Good Friday, BTW). Easter the Nicene fathers felt should be always on a Sunday (and not without reason). To be somewhat consistent, we should celebrate Easter on the Sunday closest to April 8. This would be an admission that neither East nor West was entirely consistent and sensible on Paschal celebrations and we could all move forward this way and be more historically accurate, for what it's worth.
I do believe the original Celtic churches of Ireland and Britain originally used the Julian calendar, but were likewise bullied by the Catholics to relent to supposed Roman primacy.
There was a discrepancy, but it was a different one. This was a thousand years before there was a Gregorian calendar. Everyone was using some form of the Julian calendar, but different formulas. I think Quartodecimanism was lurking in the background, but it was not directly that. But Rome and Constantinople matched and the Celtics would have been different from both.
I really enjoyed this perspective. Never thought of it that way.
Loved this piece. By the way, is there an article you can link to about Elias Chacour's decision to celebrate Pascha on the Julian calendar? I'd like to read more about that.
Thanks brother! Unfortunately that's all that Archbishop Elias told me when we met. I wish we'd have time to discuss it more.
Excellent clear explanation for the middle of Lent. Thank you.
Thank you for this well-rounded explanation. I had not heard of the “Ecclesiastical Full Moon” — I had been told that the Orthodox calculation also took into account the Jewish Passover which Pascha could not precede. Does that amount to the same thing in practice?
Hey there so the point about Pascha needing to happen after Passover is actually a common misconception. Rather than explain the misconception I'll just provide 2017 as an example of this. That year, Orthodox Easter was April 16 while the Jewish Passover began on April 10 and ended on April 18.
sources:
https://www.when-is.com/orthodox-easter-sunday-2017.asp
https://www.hebcal.com/holidays/pesach-2017
That's right. There was/is also a misconception that Christians may not celebrate Holy Pascha at the same time as the Jewish Pascha. That's also incorrect. The calculation of Easter can't be influenced by Jewish Passover one way or the other.
It seems to me to be an issue of the spirit of the law vs. the letter. And maybe unusually, the West, often accused of being legalistic, is on the side of the spirit. The Council of Nicaea was trying to set an Easter that would take place in early spring. Julian March 21 was not a sacred date but where the real equinox happened to be at the time. An Easter that often occurs in (Gregorian) May was not the Council would have wanted. Christmas and the Nativity of John the Baptist ("he must increase and I must decrease") also have imagery grounded in being close to the real solstices.
I am not saying we should base everything on the weather. After all, Southern Hemisphereans, including Pope Francis himself when he was Bergoglio, experience March and April and May as fall months. But it is a factor. I would assume (but who knows?) that the Second Coming will have occurred well before then, but if there is still a world in thousands of years, Julian Easter will have wandered into Gregorian June and July.
Also, even if they may be less close theologically, in a country like the U.S., Protestants have to be taken into account. Albeit it would be humorous if they were the last adherents of a papal calendar they were once also very stubborn in refusing to adopt.
To which the Orthodox reply, "Therefore the idea that lay at the foundation of the Gregorian reforms, according to which Pascha can only be a spring holy day celebrated inalterably after the astronomical spring equinox, is based upon false premises. Nowhere in the Holy Scripture is there anything about the spring equinox, nor does it say anywhere in Holy Scripture that Pascha is a seasonal feast. The Jewish Pascha is, in fact, a seasonal holy day, connected with the agricultural cycle. But what is Christian Pascha? It is the remembrance of the Savior’s resurrection. It has no relationship to astronomical cycles or the rising of the moon and stars." ("On the Julian Calendar, Church Tradition, and Standing for the Faith" by Pavel Kuzenkov)
Michael, you hold forth contradictions here! Pascha cannot, at the same time, both "have no relationship to astronomical cycles or ... the moon" and also be fixed by the Nicene Fathers on the first Sunday after the first full moon after the vernal equinox.
Why do Protestant heretics need to be accounted for in anything? Those who deny the Faith should be called anathema and then ignored unless they give up their false teachings.
I am speaking in practical terms.
My question still stands, why should we care what heretics do? Rome is heterodox but does not deny the Faith as taught by the Seven Ecumenical Councils ergo they can and should be met with, with the hope that they will awaken from the slumber that they are in and return to the fold. Protestants deny teachings from those same Councils. They are heretics and ought to be called out as heretics, anathematized and then ignored.
"He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, 'This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.'"
The problem here is that the Orthodox have the slightly troubling tendency to make out human traditions to be quasi (or completely) divine. This sort of ecclesial chauvinism (somewhat exacerbated by our ritual homogeneity and tendency towards ethnophyletism) means that we get a mindset of "our way or the highway"—it's not so much a principled defense of truth as a strict adherence to a sense of prideful superiority.
The Julian calendar is not an essential part of the Tradition — it's just the old secular calendar of the Empire conveniently adopted by the Church. Our rather inaccurate comptus for computing moon phases certainly isn't either. We are behaving in an expressly uncanonical manner by celebrating Easter in this way, as, whether one likes it or not, about half of the time our Easter is not on the first Sunday after the first full moon of spring. The best solution, as has been proposed many times, would probably be to use modern astronomy to compute Easter precisely, taking the location of Jerusalem for the precise times of the equinox and full moon. This could be accurately predicted out around 4,000 years in the future by anybody with a little know-how and a laptop computer. But what can one say? To quote a certain old sinner, "the fools would rather disagree with the Sun than agree with the Pope."
As for the changing of doctrine, this has occurred; even Trinitarianism is a 'development.' It's because the Eastern Roman Empire was so fecund for theological diversity that, as a back-reaction, our liturgies are so intensely Trinitarian, Chalcedonian, and iconophilic. History is not kind to the common stories the Orthodox and Catholics tell about themselves; a coherent understanding of this is a task for more learned men than I!
If the Orthodox dating of Easter is “expressly noncanonical” then every single one of the men who wrote those canons also violated the same canons year after year after year.
But this brings us to another important question. Why the mania for a common Easter? It’s far less consequential than the theological and ecclesiological differences between the RCC and EOC, as evidenced by the fact that not all RCs follow the Gregorian Calendar and not all EOs follow the Julian.
The RCC wants to find a “third way” on Easter for the same reason it has adopted an indifferentist position on the Filioque: it knows the popes of old badly overstepped their authority but they won’t admit they were wrong. They want to move on without admitting fault. Or when they say, “We’re sorry for condemning you to Hell for not following our arbitrary whims,” they want the EO to reply, “And we’re sorry for not following your arbitrary whims.”
The EO are not going to do that. And they don’t mind having a charitable disagreement with the RCC over these matters. The trouble is that RCs are not civil. Hence, “The fools would rather disagree with the Sun than agree with the Pope.”
It’s deeply pathological behavior. RCs seem to have a deep, one-sided need for EO approval; when they don’t get it, they become insulting and issue heavy-handed condemnations. I do believe it comes of knowing there are not, in fact, “Good arguments on both sides”—that the good arguments belong to the EOC.
But if you really think that intercommunion is more important than unity of faith, you can look forward to the German bishops allowing Lutherans to receive the Eucharist.
Bu the way, it really is a scandal that RCs refer to the Trinity as a developed doctrine. The Fathers were very clear that it is not. For instance, Saint Basil:
“We are therefore bound to confess the Son to be of one substance with the Father, as it is written; but the Father to exist in His own proper hypostasis, the Son in His, and the Holy Ghost in His, as they themselves have clearly delivered the doctrine. They indeed clearly and satisfactorily declared in the words Light of Light, that the Light which begat and the Light which was begotten, are distinct, and yet Light and Light; so that the definition of the Substance is one and the same.”
They declared it, meaning the Persons of the Trinity. Basil is clearly condemning those who say that the Trinity is anything less than evident in Divine Relevation. He then goes on to say,
“Both men whose minds have been preoccupied by a heterodox creed and now wish to change over to the congregation of the orthodox, and also those who are now for the first time desirous of being instructed in the doctrine of truth, must be taught the creed drawn up by the blessed fathers in the Council which met at Nicaea.”
Which is exactly what the Orthodox say today.
Just to make it clear — I am Orthodox!
I did not say that the Orthodox method is uncanonical in se (it, at the time, determined all the requisite astronomical variables to the highest accuracy then attainable) — I said that we are *behaving uncanonically* by using a method that is now terribly inaccurate, which results in us celebrating Easter on the wrong day more often than not.
Yes, the Latin Church is like that. "We may not be right, but we are never wrong." Then again, as Met. Kallistos Ware (memory eternal!) said, our motto in turn is "never explain, never apologize" — we, too, are not perfect.
Whoever said anything about intercommunion? I would only ever even consider communing in an Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, or Assyrian church, because the faith is the same. (Well, I suppose in a Catholic or orthodox Anglican church as well, if I could make it work intellectually; but all of this is conjectural, anyways).
St. Basil was one of the theologians who formed the theology of the Trinity. Before this, educated Christians, like most everybody, held to a schema where the utterly transcendent God, the apex of 'the chain of being,' interacts with and creates the world through lesser manifestations of the Divinity. St. Justin Martyr demonstrates this very clearly, but it's evident all over the ante-Nicene period. The Cappadocian Fathers, amongst others, brilliantly saw that Christian soteriology necessarily implies the doctrine of the Trinity, or we cannot be saved — and in doing so, cut down the chain of being and, for the first time in Western history, dictated a proper understanding of divine transcendence. Their achievement is singularly remarkable and deserves commendation, but it was the achievement of daring theologians, not taciturn expositors. St. Maximos was tortured for "not accepting the words as they are" of the councils. And so on.
[But, for goodness's sake, St. Basil himself refused to call the Holy Spirit God (ὁ θεός; ho theos) because it was untraditional. As for his final quote, the original Nicene Creed itself condemns and anathematizes anybody who says that the Father and Son are of different ousia *or hypostasis* (they were, of course, roughly synonymous, meaning "essense" and "substance"/"subsistence", respectively, but nevertheless), which he himself had just done.]
My apologies, John, for assuming you were RC... not that there's anything wrong with that. ;-)
You say:
<<I did not say that the Orthodox method is uncanonical in se (it, at the time, determined all the requisite astronomical variables to the highest accuracy then attainable) — I said that we are *behaving uncanonically* by using a method that is now terribly inaccurate, which results in us celebrating Easter on the wrong day more often than not.>>
As I tried to make clear in the article, I don't think the date itself is of vital importance. EOs could adopt the Gregorian Calendar tomorrow and it would change nothing. Heck, RCs could adopt the Julian Calendar tomorrow and it would change nothing. My aim, rather, was to explain how the calendar points to the deeper division between the two communions.
Finding a common date for the celebration of Easter would probably do nothing more than paper over those differences. I believe that's often the exact intention of many unionist Orthodox, about whom Saint Paisios of Mount Athos said:
<<With sadness I must write that among all the "unionists" I’ve met, never have I seen them to have either a drop or shred of spirituality. Nevertheless, they know how to speak about love and union while they themselves are not united with God, for they have not loved Him.>>
I can't argue with Saint Paisios, if only because I've never met an Orthodox unionist. However, I've met many Catholic unionists, and I believe the inverse is true. In my experience, it's precisely the most prayerful RCs who long to be united with the EOs. For whatever it's worth.
There is a sort of ecumenism that is not born of love but indifference — there is no real care for truth or God, so differences come to seem irrelevant. Of course, there is also the other sort — the one that sees Christ in all people, and reaches out to "labour, striving according to his working, which worketh in me mightily" to heal the wrongs we've wrought.
In any case, please forgive my acerbity above, and may God bless you.
And please forgive me mine. Have a blessed Lent, John!
Nearly everything in this article that isn't a direct quotation is a contested point: your understanding of the development of doctrine (which somehow the Orthodox are exempt from even though Latin terms of development like 'transubstantiation' are borrowed in Orthodox conciliar definitions), the orthodoxy of the Filioque (which even the Greek fathers taught: https://www.youtube.com/live/WBUJsMR9Vqo) and the validity of its insertion into the Creed (which was added to at Constantinople I, even though it shouldn't ever be changed), the "humanism" of Trent (what even is that supposed to mean?), etc.
The point of 'Julian or Gregorian?' in this article is a sprig of garnish on top of a plate of usual Eastern Orthodox talking points.
Take it for what it is! Thanks for reading.
I (a Roman Catholic) have to push back on this statement or at least demand some more nuance:
"Likewise, the Orthodox Church anathematizes those who are not content with “a pure and simple faith”—and so, by “sophistic demonstration,” misconstrue Church teachings “according to their own way of thinking, and to present them according to their own opinion.”
My main point of disagreement with your presentation of the issue is that it sets up a double standard: The East counts adheres to a "pure and simple faith" but the West tends to "sophistic demonstration." But what counts as a "pure and simple faith"? Who decides what is "sophistic demonstration"? I, obviously, am totally opposed to anyone who uses philosophy to twist Christ's sacred doctrine as found in the Bible and Sacred Tradition. However, both East and West accept, and indeed, have dogmatized certain philosophical concepts that are not clearly found in Scripture or the earliest Fathers. For instance, both the Chalcedonian East and West, in settling the early Christological issues, speak of an important distinction between "person" (hypostasis) and "nature" (ousia). Why is that not sophistic demonstration? Because both East and West agree that it isn't?
The Eastern Orthodox probably regard Western theological arguments regarding grace and predestination as an example of the subtleties of philosophy undermining the pure and simple faith--and maybe they have a point, since the Congregatio de Auxiliis famously never resolved the dispute between the Dominicans and the Jesuits but simply ordered an end to the controversy. However--and this is particularly timely since those following the Julian calendar would have just celebrated the Sunday of St. Gregory Palamas--the Eastern distinctions between essences and energies would strike Latin Catholics as too dependent on particular philosophical presuppositions and not obviously found in the early Fathers (this point is separate from any substantive disagreements regarding hesychasm between East and West). So, why is it wrong for Western scholastics to argue about sanctifying, actual, efficacious grace, etc., but alright for Eastern monks to elaborate theories of energies and essences?
You have raised a real question and you are not entirely wrong that there is a difference in emphasis between East and West. But the East's approach has not been entirely that of a "pure and simple faith," if by pure and simple we mean "free of extra-Scriptural philosophical argumentation."
You're not wrong at all! We have to use language in order to communicate our ideas, and that sometimes includes the language of philosophy. The question (again) is whether we're trying to preserve the teachings handed down by Christ to the Apostles, or whether we're trying to illuminate new truths which (at least to our minds) follow automatically from certain points of revelation and/or logical inferences.
Let me use an example from the article. We all agree that Mary is immaculate. The question is, was she immaculate from her conception, as Duns Scotus argued? Or was she immaculate from her birth, as Aquinas argued? There are very good arguments on both sides; there are also very good arguments for alternative theories.
The sensible thing, I should think, is to leave that all alone. Let academics continue to argue if they want, but allow the common people to absent themselves. But Rome feels the need to give dogmatic answers to every question posed by theologians.
I agree, we can sometimes overemphasize the difference between the Orthodox and Catholic approaches to theology. But there is a substantial difference.
All these questions and opinions and declarations of men/women… but no one has suggested what God has said (or says)( He still speaks John 16- Holy Spirit ‘s ministry. James says that we should ‘ask’ Godard He will give us all the wisdom we need (or want).
Excellent explanation of some complex history. If I recall correctly, you are Eastern Catholic (Mekite perhaps?), correct? If so, have you ever written or spoken on why you went that route vs Eastern Orthodoxy? I'd be curious to read/listen if you have.
An interesting essay, Michael, both thoughtful and thought-provoking; though not wholly agreeable to this Latin! However, given the oceans of ink spilled by men holier and wiser than both of us (from east and west alike), I'll offer just two wry observations.
First, your phrase "without addition or subtraction" is nearly identical with that used by Polycrates and the Asian bishops in their letter to Victor of Rome . . . defending Quartodecimanism: "We observe the exact day; neither adding, nor taking away" (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History V, 24, 2).
Second, if indeed the filioque was first inserted into the creed at Toledo III (a controverted point) -- well, that council was presided over by Leander of Seville, whom you remember at the altar on February 27. Not that this "proves" the filioque, of course; it merely suggests that the filioque hardly offended the sensibilities of many pious Latins.
Well, I wish you a fruitful Great Fast and a blessed Pascha, when at last it dawns (for you!).
Hello Philip! Thanks for your thought-provoking comment.
I'm sure you're right about Polycrates & Co. However, the misapplication of a principle does not invalidate the principle itself. What's interesting to me is that the Asian bishops believed the principle was sound, and assumed that Pope Victor would as well. They assumed that Victor was also a "conservative"—that, if they could establish Quartodecimanism as the practice handed down by the Apostles, they would carry the debate. I don't know what Victor said in reply, but I'd bet money it wasn't: "Well, I'm the infallible pope, so what I say goes." ;-)
Thanks for being here! Latins are always welcome here, and their thoughts warmly welcomed. Happy Easter to you and yours!
Victor? Oh, he tried to excommunicate them all, but Irenaeus (who had a connection with Asia) talked him down, reminding him that his predecessors had long accepted the difference, and that one of them (Anicetus) had even communed with Polycarp when the latter visited Rome, despite an express controversy over this matter in that earlier time.
The epistolary fragments preserved by Eusebius are well worth reading:
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250105.htm
“So the Schism was caused by an overweening pope unilaterally introducing practices which originated, not in the Apostolic Treasury spoken of by Irenaeus, but in the academic debates of court theologians.” I (a Catholic) find this reasoning very curious. Couldn’t this argument be applied to the Arian, Christological, Iconoclast, or any of the other patristic controversies the resolution of which the Orthodox accept? Irenaeus himself misused “ousia” and “hypostasis” by the lights modern Orthodoxy. Far be it from me to disagree with adherence to tradition for its own sake, but if you need to add some additional justification by huffing that Catholics keep trying to use scholarship to adjust the apostolic deposit you must also throw out the ecumenical councils as well.
Regarding Arianism, St. Basil points out in his 125th letter that God reveals Himself as three Persons/one Divinity in Holy Scripture. Regarding icons, they were in use from the earlest days of the Christian Church; I would recommend reading Craig Truglia's article "Ante-Nicene Iconodulia in Plain Sight."
That's not to say that some Early Christians—indeed, some Church Fathers!—didn't occasionally get the details wrong. Indeed, the Councils were called precisely to clarify the finer points.
Yet this doesn't mean that God's trinitarian nature was merely a theory before the Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople. We can't say it was okay to profess Arianism before the Council because the doctrine had yet to be fully developed. No: the orthodox Fathers speak of Arius as a malicious heretic, a faithless usurper, etc. They clearly believed that the doctrine of the Trinity (if not the word "Trinity") was handed down by the Apostoles. And so it was!
Thank you for the recommended reading on icons, I wasn’t aware of that perspective so I am interested to check it out! However, I fear I was not clear in the parallel I am attempting to draw between modern and patristic doctrinal controversy. My understanding of the position you have articulated is the following: you accept terminological development, but that is of a different kind than doctrinal development which is characterized by the elevation of theological theory to divine revelation.
So far so good. The question then is what distinguishes a terminological development from a doctrinal one. At first blush it should be straightforwardly the difference between introducing a new term to clarify or better articulate an old idea and adopting a new idea to fill in a perceived gap in revelation. I would argue this explanation fails to hold up to scrutiny.
Lets take the immaculate conception and Trinitarian controversy. Suppose they are a doctrinal and terminological development respectively. How would we expect them to differ? The obvious answer is you would expect additional metaphysical baggage absent the original formulation. But of course we see this in both cases. The early church developed an entire metaphysics to explain the how the structure of the godhead is coherent and debates about the details spanned literally hundreds of years. You can say it boiled down to the apostolic revelation that God is three in one. No argument here, but then on what basis do you deny this type of explanation of the immaculate conception? As you note, the orthodox affirm Mary’s sinlessness, so thats part of the deposit of faith. Now, just as for Jesus to truly be God, he must actually BE God, For Mary to be immaculate in any non-trivial way, she must have always been immaculate (otherwise its an empty honorific because everyone is eventually made sinless just as it wpuld be for Jesus to be called God without being God). Ironically (at least in the case of Aquinas) that part of the theology wasnt at issue. Rather Aquinas disagreed with the Immaculate Conception because of his biology. He followed aristotle thinking the seed came from the man, and Joachim’s seed transmitted the sin of Adam, whereas in the incarnation Christ was incarnated by the Holy Spirit as a new Adam and therefore even his matter was never from a sinful person.Thomas though the soul informed the body at quickening rather than conception so Mary couldnt have been immaculate prior to existing. Thats not a deep theological disagreement.
The simple response to this is to reply that we have added something after all— the scientific knowledge of how pregnancy works. How dare we? But the easy response to this is that if this is the issue we ought to also condemn the fathers for their reliance on Neo-Platonic philosophy to formulate the trinity. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander. I am fairly confident there is no way to parse the distinction without begging the question.
To sum up, both doctrines required additional metaphysical theory to explain a simple, ex hypothesi apostolic idea. Both made use of non-revealed concepts developed after revelation had ceased. There was actually much more intense controversy and disagreement surrounding the doctrine that supposedly did not develop, and so I truly don’t see how the two can be properly distinguished. I suppose you could say that the Immaculate conception relies on a flawed theory of grace, but the Arian might have said the same thing about the fathers’ theory of God. Finally, the actual binding part of the doctrine doesn’t actually depend on you conception if grace, so that objection is irrelevant.
What I fear is being undermined here is that there are legitimate criticisms of how the west approaches theology, but the development of doctrine aint one. Anyone who believes in the deposit of faith has to have an explanation for how novel expressions of the faith can come about, because its a historical fact that they did.
Thank you for your thoughtful answe! As a rule of thumb, the Orthodox would say: If you were to describe a principle to the Church Fathers, and their consensus would not be affirmative (i.e., if they rejected the principle, or plead ignorance, or were simply indifferent to the question), then we are talking about a Newmanesque development of doctrine—not the refinement of doctrinal terminology. Of course, you may still believe in Newman's theory. But there *is* a meaningful difference between the development of doctrine and the refinement of terminology.
Incidentally, both Pius IX in 'Pastor Aeternus' and Pius XI in 'Pascendi Dominici Gregis' agree with the Orthodox. Both popes rule out the possibility of the development of doctrine—of a change in our fundamental understanding of the Christian Faith. They insist that the doctrines of papal infallibility and papal supremacy have been known to all right-believing Christians since the very origins of the Church.
They were wrong about that, of course—a fact that even the Vatican now acknowledges (cf., the 'Chieti Document'). But like the Orthodox, the Popes Pius profess the CONSERVATION of doctrine, not the DEVELOPMENT of doctrine. That's why it took so long to canonize Newman despite his heroic virtue, and why he's still viewed with suspicion by many traditionalist Catholics. He was, by the standards of his time, a Modernist. The development of doctrine is Modernism.
Sorry for any typos wrote that on my phone on the subway 😬