I have just found a new comment of Surviving Modernism.
I disagree, somewhat. I’m an Orthodox monk currently being received into the Catholic Church. One of the major factors in my decision to swim the Adriatic to the West, was the way theology is becoming completely untethered, not only from Patristics, but even rational thought, in much of Orthodoxy (with no authoritative voice to say otherwise). This is only one factor, mind you.
Modern Orthodoxy comes with some extremely strange, intellectual gymnastics, mostly aimed at proving Orthodoxy to be more hip and groovy and mysticalicious than “the West.” The theological system of Romanides, for example, is a convoluted mess of pseudo-intellectual flim-flammery, that winds up undermining the whole meaning of the Cross. It is increasingly the mainstream view (though Hart’s sober remonstrances may be a good counter-influence in Anglophone countries). And just read Chrysostomos Zaphiris’ justification of contraception – you see, humanity is a “co-creator” of the moral order with God and because of mystically complex rationalizations, whatever we decide to be right, after sober reflection (unless we soberly decide that sober reflection isn’t right), is right. I’ve never heard such pseudo-intellectual theology, not even in Chardin. Plenty of stuff even in Zizioulas and Yannaras is but an attempt to prettify apostate moral views and innovative ecclesiologies. Palamism and Neo-Palamism are often rife with anti-rational sentiment, paradoxically couched in a mountain of pseudo-intellectual jargon.
I tend to think that pseudo-intellectualism and pseudo-mysticism has always been a far greater problem amongst the Greeks – their language and culture lends itself to it, and even the modernist and humanist revolution in the West, was planted by Hellenes fleeing the destruction of the Byzantine Empire. The earliest writings I’ve read that truly sounded “modern” to my ears, were of 14th-century Byzantines.
The thing that strikes me about this fellow is that he is alienated from his Church by individual theologians and is converting to Roman Catholicism. I take it he prefers Hans Küng and Cardinal Kasper to Zizioulas and Yanneras! I hope he will be happy in his new spiritual home.
You don’t get good theology by converting to this or that Church. We do better by reading and writing on our own. I intend no unkindness to the person who wrote this comment (identifier available via the above link), but it seems so strange. One thing I have learned over the years is that anything good and beautiful in churches is the work of individuals – music, art, poetry, literature, architecture. We don’t make huge upheavals in our lives because we are inspired by such or such a saint. I don’t become a Methodist because I admire John Wesley – his theology, spirituality or his hair! I don’t become Lutheran because I love the music of Bach. And so forth… We are all called to contribute our treasures wherever we are, without expecting them to be institutionalised.
Perhaps such a thing is only possible to learn by bitter experience.
The Blue Flower 
I don’t think I’ll ever understand why someone would convert to the Papal communion, especially from the Orthodox fold.
Although I would never personally consider moving to Rome, and I have outlined in my short posting about the personal infallibility of the Pope as the main theological reason, I can well understand someone leaving Byzantium for Rome. Unless one has experienced firsthand the virulent, absolute hatred that often emanates from the Byzantines for any tradition that is not Byzantine, almost always tinged by racial and ethnic animosity, it is impossible to understand why Rome would almost seem an oasis.
Our friend did mention that the theological issues were but a part of his motivation. I think that if I had been in his situation, I would take some time to “cool off” and work out the theological issues – not in churches but in libraries. I have read rather a lot about attitudes in some quarters of Orthodoxy that are far from Christianity, so anything would seem to be a refreshing change. That’s why I don’t try to judge the person but rather be content with being critical of what I read.
Yes, this is very true. But we also need to consider that for many Byzantine Orthodox the move to Rome is often not very much a culture shock that it can be for others. The Eastern rite Catholic churches do provide a base which is culturally not very shocking. In my own experience, often eastern rite Catholics are almost a breath-of-fresh air after having to deal with the really hate filled, toxic atmosphere of Byzantine Orthodoxy. One can even have a conversation with Byzantine Catholics on issues that would bring out spittle spewing, screaming meanies from the Orthodox.
I quote the 1872 Synod in Constantinople, “We renounce, censure and condemn racism, that is racial discrimination, ethnic feuds, hatreds and dissensions within the Church of Christ, as contrary to the teaching of the Gospel and the holy canons of our blessed fathers which ‘support the holy Church and the entire Christian world, embellish it and lead it to divine godliness.'” Phyletism is a sin, and anyone who believes that Orthodoxy is to be organised along racial and ethnic lines does not speak for the Holy Church.
I am a convert to Holy Orthodoxy from Prayer Book Anglo-Catholicism, by the way, and I am also of African descent.
Perhaps you should also read the most recent message from ROCOR in which they state, categorically, that they exist only for Russians in the dispora.
Jules, you also need to understand the quote that you have posted within context. It was written by the Greeks against the Bulgarians; yet, not too long ago the Archbishop of Greece declared, openly, that “Orthodoxy is Hellenism and Hellenism is Orthodoxy.” The Greeks happily condemn the Slavs for Phyletism but do not accept that the condemnation can ever apply to them, since Byzantine Orthodoxy is considered to be Greek; at least by the Greeks.
I can certainly understand his move actually, despite the machinations of Kasper etc. Whatever the excesses of the modern papacy (and there are many), the position of the so called “Papal communion” is clear with regards to ethical and moral behavior and it is consistent with the Fathers at least. A friend of mine who was Russian Orthodox (and who was supposed to be aborted while still in the womb) was told by two separate pastors not to marry his Chinese fiance because God is opposed to inter-racial marriage and that abortion “is not the best form of birth control but…..” Regardless of Cardinal Kasper and Hans Kung, what they advocate is at least contrary to the Catholic Church’s teachings and observant Catholics know to reject it. In the case of the Orthodox it is not always so clear and, as the convert above says, many pastors abuse their position by hiding beneath antiquarian obscurantism and calling it “tradition” or “economy.” That in itself may be an abuse, but the matter is not entirely clear.
My point being that the issues at hand can be very tangible and not purely intellectual abstraction. We do not know all of this man’s story nor will we.
I am an Evangelical wanting to convert to Rome and I feel similarly to this chap. I’ve looked at the Orthodox option and I feel very uncomfortable with the harsh anti-western rhetoric of so many Orthodox writers. You seldom ever see many of them acknowledging anything good or positive in Catholicism or Protestantism.
I wish you God speed in your journey. The best advice I could give to anyone is to take his time and not to rush into anything. Continuing Anglicanism might be a possibility to look into. Keep us informed.
I will agree with Fr Anthony here, Matthew, please do take the time to look at continuing Anglicanism. Although the Movement is often condemned by both Rome and Byzantium for being “divided” in reality it is no more divided than either Rome or the Byzantines (actually the Byzantines are far, far more divided and often rebaptise each other!). And on the local level it is very much united with functioning parishes and institutions; and although small, is that necessarily a bad thing?
I think one of the issues with Continuing Anglicanism for laity is its limited geographical spread. It’s not much worth to join a religion when at best you’ll be able to attend services once or twice a year due to the distance. At least in my part of the USA that would be the scenario.
As you say, it depends where you live. I don’t suppose there are many churches in the Nevada Desert or New Mexico! At any rate, people shouldn’t be “converting to Churches” but resettling as Christians in the parish or local community where they are most at home. There’s no one solution for everybody.
Holy Orthodoxy isn’t for the faint of heart. I practise Orthodoxy in the Western rite, and I would say that I am deeply satisfied with the richness of Orthodox traditions, liturgy, and patristics. I would also ask that people stop refering to us as Byzantines and call us what we are, Orthodox Christians. The Orthodox Church does not hate the West but her heresies, and Orthodox theologians are often quite critical of them.
You know, we’d all be a lot better off if we’d be less sensitive about what others call us. “Christian” itself was apparently intended to be an insulting label – one which Christians soon adopted for themselves. Most labels, in fact, originate from outside the group labeled, and most are not intended very favorably. I am an Anglican, with high respect for the traditions of both the RC West and the Eastern Orthodox, but find myself in difficulty in naming either group. You see, I believe myself and my tradition to be fully Catholic, and thus have trouble yielding the name “Catholic” uniquely to Rome; I believe my faith to be fully Orthodox and thus have a similar problem with regard to the East. I mean no disrespect by using more specific terms for either — I pretty much have to in order to express my own views honestly. What I do find a bit insulting is the refusal of others to allow me that kind of honesty. What I would ask is for all of us to tolerate those locutions we may not find comfortable in order to find a way to communicate with one another in real Christian charity.
You’re right, actually. I’m way too sensitive sometimes, and I think we all can be, about labels.
Thanks, Jules. I think we can honestly and directly address what we feel to be the deficiencies of other groups without either giving or taking offense. We have to be honest and open about our differences, but at the same time we need to be purposeful in celebrating our agreements and seeking ways to approach one another.
Would you please move this conversation to the Orthodox Blow-Out Department.
Holy Orthodoxy isn’t for the faint of heart. So it would seem.
I don’t find cui’s motivations odd in the least.
As for Cardinal Kasper et al.: There have always been Bad Bishops, including heretical ones. Just ask Saint Athanasius.
That is precisely why we have a Magisterium — so that confused Catholics can have somewhere to turn when they want to know what the Church actually teaches, as opposed to What Some Bishop (or Priest) Says.
And, for the record, Pope Francis has recently smacked down Cardinal Kasper’s proposal, according to blogger Elliot Bougis (a frequent critic of Francis):
The Holy Spirit knows what He’s doing. 🙂
God bless,
Diane
O dear! I think I’ll leave this one to Patricius or Dale… It all gives me “nostalgic” feelings thinking of 2011 and 2012 when everyone was talking about warm the water for the Tiber swimmers was and how wonderful it was.
Of course if someone wants to go RC, I’m not stopping them. Religious Liberty for all and the respect of conscience.
But, don’t let anyone start rattling on about a so-called Magisterium here (other than the common teaching of bishops and synods of bishops).
Dear Fr Anthony, as you may still remember in the warm days of 2011 and 2012 I was perhaps one of the few stating that it would not work out, and that soon the parade would no only be rained upon, but drowned in the downpour. My reasoning was and still is, the absolutely vicious manner that several of my clergy friends who were traditionalists had been treated, horribly treated by the way; depriving a priest of his parish and then refusing him a Catholic burial because of his refusal to give communion in the hand is only one such case. And when one considers that many people interested in the Anglican Use were both theologically and liturgically closer to Catholic traditionalist than the modernists, I did not see a good ending. I think that I have been proven correct on that score.
As for Dianne, I like her. She often states things in a manner that makes even me sound rational at times, but if one reads many of her posts she has something that is so often lacking in so many church related conversations, a sense of humour and for that I am always grateful. She is a committed Roman Catholic but usually expresses her Catholicism forthright and above board. She is never boring.
As for the magisterium, a type of salvation through administration one suspects, I personally prefer that we simply remain true to the Old Catholic Faith and the traditional liturgy. Balloons, Eucharistic ministers and clown masses are simply, for me, not part of either the old Catholic faith or tradition (and contrary to what some have stated, yes there have been clown masses and jazz masses and rock masses and polka masses).
I’m sure that Diane is a good person. One of the advantages of being a Roman Catholic woman is “keeping out of the engine room” and keeping her “innocence”. Indeed one way to avoid dealing with cognitive dissonance is keeping ignorant, not wanting to know. My own wife is like this. She doesn’t know how such-and-such works, but would refuse an explanation. It is a mentality I don’t understand, but I’m a man! The tragedy will be when these people find themselves without priests as has happened in Europe. I suppose the choice will then be modern consumer culture or the old Paganism.
Dale, it is easier for us priests, but we have so little to show. The sort of priests the laity want, the “pure spirits in cassocks”, are getting rarer and rarer. So we just keep going as we can, and leave the wives and other ladies to their dreams. We all have to have our dreams somewhere…
I’m uneasy about the blog she linked to. What is the source for these comments? Can an obscure blog like that be the only source for such important information? I read the comments following the ‘report’, and it seems that his readers are pretty well in agreement that this is a hoax, deliberage on the blogger’s part – a joke. Is it? Perhaps, perhaps not, but it seems that more evidence is needed. I’ll wait for more.
I agree. It looks like the Smug Converts’ Apologetics Page – berck! There’s an old saying in church history – cuius rex eius religio, normally meaning that the decision whether to remain Roman Catholic or become Protestant in the 16th century depended on the king or prince of the country. I am alarmed about how things have changed since February 2013. The apologists went silent, and they piped up again once they learned how to deal with the cognitive dissonance.
There is an old management concept called corporate knowledge – just why bosses don’t like people working in the same office for too long!
I went to the blog that Diane linked. Perhaps I have misread it, but “the Pope” of “the Pope speaks out against the Kasper Proposal” is Benedict XIV (1675-1758; Pope 1740-1758).
I suppose they will be saying next that Hans Küng was condemned by Boniface VIII. A comment in this thread identifies the texts in question to be from Nimiam Licentiam by Benedict XIV. Unfortunately this most glorious Pontiff died in 1758 and nothing will bring him back! 😉
What I have always found interesting about Kueng is that so long as he was questioning the virgin birth, the divinity of Christ and other such erstwhile secondary issues (for those without a sense of humour, I mean this fallaciously), he was left alone and continued to have official support, but the moment he questioned the authority and infallibility of the Pope, he was trash. For me this is the epitome of modern Rome, everything is up for grabs and interpretation, except the Pope. Sad really.
This seems to be the whole extent of being a “catholic” for certain individuals, one’s devotion to a single individual, who now has full power over what is and what is not the Church, Tradition, Faith and its expression. Aristotle’s condemnation of rule by one comes to mind.
Yes, anyone wanting to convert to a new faith group should always proceed with extreme caution and deliberation. Probably the absolute best thing to do is to take some YEARS to make the actual journey. Make it a slow deliberate process. That means first and foremost spending a lot of time worshipping with your potential co-religionists. And taking the time to seriously study what they believe. And how they act. Both in your neck of the woods and elsewhere. The grass isn’t always greener on the other side but sometimes it looks that way until you start walking on it.
I do chuckle more than a bit when people extol the “unity” that is the modern RCC. Today’s RCC isn’t the RCC of 1960 or even 1560 let alone 960. The radical changes of the past 50 years might be the best predictor of more radical changes over the next 50 years. And there is a serious theological war within the RCC between progressives, liberals, moderates, conservatives, traditionalists, and fundamentalists. It has been raging since at least the 1950s. You see it in the pew and at the altar of local parishes, seminaries, within chancellories, between bishops, within national conferences of bishops, in their schools and hospitals, and press. And the “losing” side never gives up. Most of the “victories” over the past 50 years have been on the “left”. So the left “won” altar girls and cremation and tattoos and dumbed-down liturgies, hymnals, and prayer books. They got their “leftist” priests and bishops and a plethora of sex scandals. They jettisoned their nuns. Now they push for more. They may not get priestesses in the 21st century but they’ll push into the 22nd. To paraphrase Sonny & Cher… And the war goes on.
This is one of the most sensible comments I have read on this subject, refreshingly on-topic. One thing I have discovered over the years is that we can (and should) have our canonical superiors and other clerics and laity in the community in which we had our origins or which we joined at some time. In the end, we are on our own. No spiritual director can reach to the bottom of our souls and immanent treasure-house.
It doesn’t hurt to spend wilderness years as I did before joining the TAC in 2005 and then the ACC last year. The great saints trod the deserts, the mountains and the sea, and we all need to find our own way – not get swayed by apologetics or “true church” claims from others. We need to find our own way, and quite frankly, I don’t blame those who call it a day with institutional religion and find their own laborious way.
Some of us find our niche. Most don’t.
You know, there is one point on which we all should be in agreement — our own imperfection. There’s not one of us that fully understands or fully practices what we profess to believe. Another very obvious fact is that there’s not one religious organization, church, or jurisdiction that is entirely faithful to its own claims.
There is no perfect church, and I would counsel anyone who thinks he has found one under no circumstances to join it — for once any of had done so, it wouldn’t be perfect any more.
Some of us find our niche. Most don’t. Maybe some of us come close, but none of us will ever truly fit any niche — we can only approximate that goal as we strive unsuccessfully toward perfection.
A “sensible” answer perhaps……except in the sweeping aspersion that the ‘plethora of sex scandals’ is a product of the post-1950s progressivism/modernism which Michael is bemoaning. It is important not to confuse causes and effects and unjust to do so. On the contrary, the sex scandal is two-fold and has become a scandal because of its exposure in the modern decades.
First, the scandal is two-fold: that (1) priests and religious who were accorded respect and a presumption of holiness or uprightness and authority in moral matters by laypeople – and who presented themselves as instructors in such things – were all the while molesting mostly boys but also girls of young ages; and that (2) religious superiors and the princes of the church who were presumed to have exercised a pastoral oversight and duty of care concealed the abuse and abusers in various ways “for the good name of the Church” and their clerical reputations.
By no reasonable exercise of judgment can it be thought that these things suddenly mushroomed after 1950. The witness of victims prior to our lifetimes is silent, shrouded by death and mostly entombed in the era when Church power was greater – or less questioned – and no-one dared speak. Whilst sexual abuse will have been a reflection of the depths to which male (mostly) human nature can descend, the secrecy and concealment or blindness leading to the preferment of institutional reputation over the well-being of the young or weak is repeatedly being shown to be the result of having believed in all the wrong kinds of ways in the ontological difference of the clergy and the purpose or value of religious authority. The scandal has come about because of bad traditional theology, not good. It is the breaking of taboos over the discussion of sex, the growing scepticism towards religious authority and the democratisation pressures which have contributed to the exposure of what is proved to be the ugly side of institutional power. It is not only the religious institution of the Roman Catholic Church that is being exposed, of course, but the destruction of trust and the aftermath is particularly vast in that Church.
No, you can’t blame modernism and progressivism for the sex abuse and the institutional concealment or hypocrisy: these things are much more profoundly entwined with a long-established mentality and culture. Will there continue to be sex abusers within the ranks of those wearing habits and cassocks? Undoubtedly, but hopefully much less if those in authority take to heart the humiliations the secular authorities are bringing to bear through their Commissions of Inquiry, and reform not only procedures but attitudes and theology in the right ways.
I will deal with this subject in a new posting.
Stephen K, I can amplify my thoughts a bit. My comments are tied to at least two areas.
First, the relatively recent adoption by the RCC (and many other Churches) of modern psychological concepts that tend to replace earlier thoughts on the sacraments or moral theology. Take marriage and annulments. Suddenly in the 1960s-70s issues like the psychological maturity of the respective spouses on the date of the marriage can be grounds to annul it decades later. Now the annulments flow like water in USA. Success rate is over 90%+. I’ve seen at least one RC canon lawyer state that if you can’t get one, you aren’t trying. Or take the famous RC guilt issue of masturbation. It used to be pretty cut and dried as a mortal sin. But now read the RCC’s CCC at para. 2352. Now suddenly… “To form an equitable judgment about the subjects’ moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into acccount the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety, or other psychological or social factors that lessen or even extenuate moral culpability.” Is this Augustine, Aquinas, Trent or Freud/Jung? Social factors impact mortal sin? Seems pretty Freudian to me? Or at least very modern Jesuit!
I think this came to play in the 1960s-1990s when dealing with clerical sex offenders. They were viewed first as men needing treatment, not sinners in need of serious discipline and actual repentance. That would’ve included removing them from ministry. Not shuffling them around.
Second, the clerical selection process itself underwent great changes in the 1960s-1990s. How they did their business. And who they selected. The “left” was very successful at taking over seminaries and ensuring candidates they viewed favorably were admitted while others whom they viewed unfavorably were not. I forget which RC bishop in USA discussed their selection process in some detail with NY Times within the past decade. Possibly Archbdiocese of NY? If memory serves me, they are strongly disinclined to admit a virgin. They actually want candidates who’ve fornicated. Was that the case in 1950? I doubt it.
I found this quote:
St. Peter Damian wrote to Pope Leo IX in 1049 Of Clerics or Monks Who Are Seducers of Men (Letter31) He quotes Basil of Ancyra (329-379): “Any cleric or monk who seduces young men or boys, or who is apprehended in kissing or in any shameful situation, shall be publicly flogged and shall lose his clerical tonsure. Thus shorn, he shall be disgraced by spitting into his face, bound in iron chains, wasted by six months of close confinement, and for three days each week put on barley bread given him toward evening. Following this period, he shall spend a further six months living in a small segregated courtyard in the custody of a spiritual elder, kept busy with manual labour and prayer, subjugated to vigils and prayers, forced to walk at all times in the company of two spiritual brothers, never again allowed to associate with young men for purposes of improper conversation or advice“.
Another quote:
Captain Bligh: Now don’t mistake me. I’m not advising cruelty or brutality with no purpose. My point is that cruelty with purpose is not cruelty – it’s efficiency. Then a man will never disobey once he’s watched his mate’s backbone laid bare. He’ll see the flesh jump, hear the whistle of the whip for the rest of his life.
Perhaps someone might try such a system. You need someone like Pinochet or Franco in power to enforce everything.
Perhaps hang them or slowly garrotte them and be done with it…
Shortly after the mutiny on the Bounty, a British Admiral was on record as saying that flogging breaks a good man’s heart and makes a bad man even worse. In short, a commanding officer will get more from his men by being the kind of character they respect, and not through tyranny and excessive punishment. There are few men in power we really look up to. We become good Christians by being inspired by the example of Christ and the Saints and not being cowed by threats of punishment.
Very often, conservatives are all for disciplining others and not themselves. The rank hypocrisy of the Legionaries of Christ and Marcial Maciel is a prime example of this kind of “conservatism”.
Now I’m thinking Churchill. Some quote of his about the Royal Navy running on rum, sodomy, and the lash.
I think what Stephen K has stated about clerical sex scandals is correct. Even very conservative churches, including the Byzantine Orthodox have their scandals, only, unlike those affective Rome, there does not seem to be a media circus surrounding them.
I met Bishop Paul Anderson when he was in charge of the Russian orphanage outside of Paris when I was a seminarian, and it was obvious, even to me, a very young seminarian at the time, that something was not quite right about him, he was, well creepy. One could see that the children avoided him and were not comfortable around him at all. This could not have been completely missed by the clerical institution, but he was consecrated a bishop in the Russian Church and his story, at least in France is fairly well known now.
He was not a liberal either liturgically or theologically, although a former Anglican he despised the Anglican tradition and refused to celebrate even the Byzantine liturgy in any language other than Greek or Church Slavonic; he also refused to celebrate in French as well. This “conservatism” did not save him from being a pedophile. Nor did the conservatism of Byzantium preclude him being ordained a priest and later consecrated a bishop.
Bishop Seraphim Storheim (Russian Orthodox) of Canada, now arrested and found guilty of sexual abuse of minors was very much a liturgical as well as theological conservative as well.
Perhaps the difference is that previously the power of the Church was such that such things were easily swept under the rug, but no longer; many people, including practicing laity, are no longer intimidated by the power of a clerical caste to remain silent. Personally, I think that this is a good thing.
Father discusses this awful subject in the other thread, so here’s a final comment here. If anyone thinks “shuffling them around” was primarily a ‘treatment’ strategy, I give up. It would pay to read the inquiry transcripts closely and try getting into the psyche of a conservative, establishment or enculturated RC. There is a struggle in Christian churches – but it’s often better characterised as one between those who want to throw out the dirty bathwater without throwing out the baby and those who appear to insist that anyone who touches the bathwater, no matter how grimy, is a work of Satan. All I can say is, God help us all. I keep remembering that Christ wasn’t a Christian and wonder why we bother.
Stephen, Not exactly sure why, but you appear to assume we’re on totally different wavelengths on this subject. And maybe we are. My final two simple thoughts:
First, from the age of the very first Christians, going back to the Apostolic Age as well as the Ante- and Post-Nicean Eras, an adult man who had had or was still having sex with a boy who was a minor was (a) ineligible for ordination and (b) defrocked if ordained. Simple enough standard then and now. One that should’ve been followed over the past 50 years. Recognizes the severity of the sin, the need for repentance, the need to protect the congregation, and the complete loss of trust in the individual to be made or remain clergy.
Second, if memory serves me, it appears that so much of the “scandal” in the RCC’s recent mess was tied to the pattern of the priest being discovered, then sent off for “treatment” at some facility, often one that supposedly specialized in child abuse by clergy, and then afterward the priest was reassigned. The key was that the priest should’ve been reported to the appropriate legal authorities for his crime and defrocked.