The article “A Catholic View of Orthodoxy” by Aidan Nichols, OP seems like an excellent place to begin my reflections on my own reasons for exploring the desirability of entering into the communion of the Church of Rome. I will present my own rambling and possibly incoherent comments on Father Nichols’s piece in several parts.
I have never been a polemical Orthodox. When I joined the Orthodox Church, almost a decade ago, I decided that I would do my best to avoid the plague of convertitis. I considered the Roman Church before considering Orthodoxy, and I chose Orthodoxy because, at the time, I could not bring myself to accept the papal claims. But I never wanted to be anti-Western, anti-Roman, or anti-Catholic. In fact, I have always maintained a healthy respect for the Christian West, and even a love for the riches of the Western Catholic tradition.
And if, by God’s grace, I do become a fulfilled Orthodox by joining the communion of the Roman Church, I am determined not to become a polemical Catholic or to reject or despise my previous Church.
Reflecting on Fr Nichols’s words, I am heartened, first of all, by his irenic and non-polemical tone. One might expect an article entitled “A Catholic View of Orthodoxy” to be a syllabus of Greek schismatic errors, or a triumphalist screed. Thankfully, since Vatican II, anti-Orthodox attacks on the part of Roman Catholics have become very rare indeed (very sadly, the same cannot be said for anti-Catholic attacks on the part of Eastern Orthodox). Polemics may be appealing and persuasive to some inquirers. The “true believers” may think that this is the sort of thing that’s really going to “reel ’em in”. Specifically in the case of many Protestants, perhaps polemical discourse has its place. I’m not sure that the same kind of polemics are going to be helpful in helping folks to see East-West problem more clearly. Personally, I am far more impressed by a sane and balanced approach to the heart-breaking scandal of Orthodox-Catholic division.
The first crucial point that Father Nichols makes is that the Orthodox should be the Catholic Church’s preferred, primary “ecumenical partner.” “[T]here cannot be any doubt that the Catholic Church must accord greater importance to dialogue with the Orthodox than to conversations with any Protestant body.”
Why is this? Clearly, it is because the Latin West and the Greek East were so very close. And we remain very close, despite the millenium of separation, the polemics, the betrayals, and the atrocities – even though this may not always appear to be the case to folks on both sides of the schism. We really do, for the most part, hold the same Apostolic, Catholic and Orthodox faith, expressed in the dogmatic work of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. We, Orthodox and Catholics, are together the bearers of Holy Tradition (“the Gospel in its plenary organic transmission through the entirety of the life – credal, doxological, ethical – of Christ’s Church.”)
The second crucial point that Father Nichols makes is that the schism is not merely a tragedy for one side or the other. It is a tragedy, a scandal, and in fact a “catastrophe” for both parties, for the West as well as for the East.
A triumphalist Orthodox reading of the schism might assign not only most of the blame of the schism to the Western Church, but most of the ill-effects of the schism as well. After all, it is the Western Church, following the spurious claims of the Pope of Rome, which fell away from the unity of Orthodoxy, and thus left the visible boundaries of the true Church of Christ (and, according to some extreme Orthodox readings, deprived of grace and the Holy Spirit). Translation: “Too bad for the RCs! They ought to come back to us.”
Likewise, a triumphalist Roman Catholic reading of the schism might sound similar, assigning most of the blame to the “Greek schismatics” who have rebelled against the true Vicar of Christ and have thus cut themselves off from the visible Church of Christ. Translation: “Too bad for the Orthodox! They ought to come back to us.”
Perhaps these are extreme caricatures. I hope they are. My point is that it’s not “too bad” for one side – it’s “too bad” for both sides. It’s “too bad” for Christendom. It’s “too bad” for the Body of Christ. Both sides have suffered the catastrophic effects of the tearing asunder of the seamless garment of the Lord Jesus Christ.
To use the powerful image of Yves Congar, the Church now has a major breathing problem. Both sides have been deprived of a lung, and it is madness for either side to ignore this and act as if all is well. Speaking for the Western Church, Father Nichols is frank about the Western Church’s need for the insights of the Eastern Orthodox tradition, in order to withstand the onslaught of an increasingly hostile Western world. “Practically speaking, then, the re-entry into Catholic unity of this dogmatic, liturgical, contemplative and monastic Church could only have the effect of steadying and strengthening those aspects of Western Catholicism which today are most under threat by the corrosives of secularism and theological liberalism.”
Thank God that Father Nichols, echoing Pope John Paul II’s extraordinary Orientale Lumen, has the humility and honesty to admit that the Roman Catholic Church needs the Eastern Orthodox Church like it needs a lung transplant. Would that more Orthodox feel the same way about the riches of the Western Church, and in particular, the Petrine ministry!
“Would that more Orthodox feel the same way about the riches of the Western Church, and in particular, the Petrine ministry!”
Has there ever been a self-examination, on the part of the Orhtodox, about the good and bad effects of ‘caesaropapism’ (Hope I spelled that right) in their realms? And has there ever been a vocal appreciation of how the power struggle between Church and State played out, for better or for worse, in the West? I know little about the Orthodox but am very curious about the issues you raise.
Rob –
I think one would be hard-pressed to find an Orthodox today who would support a full-blown “caesaropapism”. In my experience, most Orthodox will admit that the Byzantine Church-State relationship had, for the most part, a corrosive influence on the Church (iconoclasm being a perfect case-in-point). Some Roman Catholic polemical takes on Orthodoxy greatly over-emphasize the role of so-called “caesaropapism” in Orthodox ecclesiology.
Orthodox readings of the Church-State struggle in the Western Church are often negative, blaming the inflation of Rome’s own understanding of its supremacy on the struggle. In fact, the criticism might be that, if the Byzantine Church can be accused of “caesaropapism”, the Roman Church might be accused of “papalcaesarism”. I think that there are grains of truth in this criticism, but in my mind it does not do away with the need for a universal Primate and the essential Petrine ministry (utilizing the previous Pope’s distinction between the essence of the Petrine ministry and the various ways it has been exercized through the centuries).
just curious, but have you read Soloviev? In particular, his writing on Papal primacy?
“We really do, FOR THE MOST PART, hold the same Apostolic, Catholic and Orthodox faith, expressed in the dogmatic work of the Seven Ecumenical Councils.”
Could you please elaborate on the phrase in all caps? What does it mean and how much weight is being placed upon it?
Sean – I have read some excerpts of Soloviev, and quite a bit about him. I’m looking for the original, unabridged English translation of his work Russia and the Universal Church (not the abridged version sold by Catholic Answers, entitled The Russian Church and the Papacy).
William – I mean that, from a Catholic perspective, there is a major defect in Orthodox ecclesiology as it has developed. Namely, it does not leave much place for a universal Primate, which (of course) Catholics believe is of the essence of the Church, willed by our Lord Jesus Christ.
Is this Nichols’ claim or your belief? I did not know whether you were summarizing his position and elaborating on your own.
It’s Nichols’ belief, and it’s a viewpoint that I am beginning to embrace. I’ve gone from regarding the Papacy as a stumbling-block to the Church, to conceding that a universal Primate is of the bene esse of the Church, and finally to believing that it is of the esse of the Church (again, something specifically willed by our Lord Jesus Christ for his Church).
I wonder if you would be so kind as to indicate the precise nature of the conclusions about the papacy which you are reaching and how or why you reached them.
What are the particular defects you see in Orthodox ecclesiology and how do they play out? What about the peculiar defects of Roman Catholicism?
Assuming that there are problems in both communities, how would one go about making a determination that one particular deviation was worse than the other? Are there other factors that weigh in the favor of one or the other?
As for a trenchant Orthodox criticism of Orthodoxy (and a couple of shots at Catholicism and Protestantism) one need go no further than Schmemann’s journals, published by SVS press. However, when I read Schmeman’s criticisms of Eastern Orthodoxy, I think they are not so much “ecclesiological” problems but the continued failures of Christians to understand the exact nature of the Church.
Jack – Thanks for the comment. You raise some interesting questions. I hope to cover the subject of the Papacy in future posts and discussions. When I do some specific posts about the Papacy, please remind me of your questions!
“papalcaesarism” – That’s good. I’m gonna have to remember that.
I thought it was interesting to hear you say
“a universal Primate is of the bene esse of the Church, and finally to believing that it is of the esse of the Church (again, something specifically willed by our Lord Jesus Christ for his Church).”
Now I am a cradle Catholic, and I attend the Tridentine mass, and could be called very conservative, but for me, I haven’t considered Papal primacy so ‘central’.
Of course, I believe in his primacy, but when I think of distinctions about Catholicism, I more likely think of Apostoloic Succession, validity of sacraments, etc. But this is probably because I am always comparing it to Protestantism, not Orthodoxy.
I look forward to hearing you relate your ideas on the “primacy” of Papal primacy in the Church.
Rob – I suppose, since I am an Orthodox investigating Rome, papal primacy is the major issue which looms in my mind. There are other East-West issues which are quite important (e.g. filioque), but for me the real clincher is the Papacy. Many of the issues in the schism can be boiled down to issues of authority and ecclesiology.
It’s good to be cautious, however. I think it’s very possible for a Catholic to over-emphasize papal primacy. Not to offend anyone, but I am a bit wary of the cult of the Holy Father that is sometimes found in “neo-conservative” Catholic circles these days. I think I’m coming to an understanding of what the Catholic Church teaches on the Papacy, but I’m thinking that it’s still possible to over-emphasize the role of the Pope. Remember again the crucial distinction made by John Paul II: the essence of the Petrine ministry can be distinguished from the various ways that it has been exercized over the centuries.
Again, hopefully I will have more posts specifically dedicated to the issue of the Papacy, soliciting the help of Catholics in answering some of the remaining questions and concerns I have about it.
Ultramontanism is very much alive and well in Catholicism. As Schmemann sort of put it, Roman Catholicism often reduces itself to a cult of the papacy (or a reactive negation of the office amongst liberals). It is one of deviations I was implying above. Similarly, one does not doubt that a disordered nationalism in which the Church is seen as serving the interests of the nation, rather than the nation serving the interests of the Church, is a deviation common in Orthodox practice. Etc. Might be best not to even go into these topics.
To put it in modern scientific jargon, I would like to see how the Body of Christ, “ecclesiology,” differs from the Body of Christ, “sacramentology,” and the Body of Christ, “Christology,” and the Body of Christ,”eschatology.” One of the peculiar delights of Orthodoxy is that, despite the many failings of their contemporary theologians, the usually clear vision of the identity of these topics they retain, something that is often blurred in Roman Catholic analytic thought.
Given what must be acknowledged as the vagueness of historical science, the variety of traditional scriptural exegesis on significant passages, and unhelpfulness of patristic proof-texting, I would be interested to see how the Papacy does or does not fit into a holistic theological vision. How does the very nature of the Body of Christ entail such an office as described by Roman Catholic dogma?
I hope that your blog does not devolve into bad polemics as it could be a fruitful endeavor. But knowing men, that is a vain hope. May God grace us with charity!
I’m not going to let it devolve into that, God willing!
Jack: I have heard this charge re “cult of the papacy,” but I don;t find it convincing, I fear. Most Catholics, I think, experience Catholicism at the local level first and foremost: It is one’s own parish priest who “filters” the hierarchy, so to speak. After him comes the bishop. When lay Catholics are ticked off about something Father said or did, what do they do? Complain to the bishop. (The poor man–LOL!) They also look to the bishop for policies that will affect their spiritual lives — such as permission for Perpetual Adoration throughout the diocese, authorization for certain religious-ed texts, policies re proper age for Communion or Confirmation, etc.
We revere, heed, and obey the pope, but he doesn’t play an immediate role in our daily lives as faithful Catholics, the way our priest and bishop do.
Found your Website on M. Liccione’s blog.
Very interesting.
You may be interested in the articles and notices on my Website.
In Christ,
James Likoudis
Have you read Fr. Nicholas Afanasieff’s The Church that presides in Love? It is eirenic, non-polemical (even tho a little tilted towards eucharistic ecclesiology) and well-worth careful reading and re-reading.
Gregorios
James – Thanks for the comment. I will definitely check out the materials on your website!
Gregorios – I have read some things by Afanasieff, and I am certainly an admirer of eucharistic ecclesiology. Since Vatican II, eucharistic ecclesiology has become a major influence in Catholic ecclesiology. And Pope Benedict XVI, when he was Ratzinger, had some very interesting things to say about eucharistic ecclesiology. This is a very good thing, IMHO! I will look for the Afanasieff book you mention.
I agree with Diane to an extent. It really depends on how you define ‘alive and well’. In my home diocese, if you listened to some of my brother seminarians you would swear that the Latin Mass was gaining so much traction around the country that we would be seeing Latin Masses at every parish in our area within a few decades. Why? Because the younger generation wants a return to “good liturgy”.
I don’t have time to go into why I am so critical of such people, but I can say why I am so skeptical of their assertions. I live in a rather conservative parish, and yet every daily Mass attendent that I have come across likes being able to understand what is going on at Mass, and they cringe when they hear that people want to go back to Latin. In fact, this “push” for the Latin Mass comes from a few hundred people, all of whom are regulars at one of the few places that does Latin Mass at the diocese. So while at the seminary some form of extreme conservativism in regards to the liturgy is a position with several supporters, I have found nearly none among everyday Catholics.
With that said, despite being in a very conservative diocese with the most conservative bishop in the country, I have met one person who might pass as an ultramontanist. If they exist, I just don’t see them. Not only have I not seen it among lay people, I don’t see it in the seminary, either. If the ultramontanists exist, I would guess that they exist in the same way that the liturgical conservatives live in my diocese: they are a small group of like-minded people who hand around in the same circles and think the same thing about the same issues. If they have any power, it is among themselves, and they hold little or no power over the larger populace.
Now, I am studying in Washington DC at a seminary that is the house for seminarians from every diocese around the country. Bishops send people to my seminary so that they can get academic degrees. Still, I have yet to find an ultramontanist, and from what these seminarians describe of their home dioceses, I doubt there is an ultramontanist around.
So if by ‘alive and well’ we mean that in some intellectual galaxy far, far away writing in “Theologians of the Yesteryear Academic Journal Quarterly”, then I have no doubt that ultramontanism is alive and kicking. However, if by ‘alive and kicking’ we attempt to look at the Church at large, I have seen none. In fact, the only time I really hear about ultramontanism is when I hear the Orthodox accusing Catholics of it.
Thank you so much for making the essay available. I read it with great interest. I cannot speak to the theological minutiae, because even as a convert, papal primacy was not the issue in crossing the Tiber. It all boiled down to theology, on which the Catholic Church prevailed at every turn.
That said, my only ongoing interactions with the Orthodox are in the realm of “the theology of the body” and I was stunned at how negatively they view the topic and the degree to which I was attacked after presenting a paper at Notre Dame (by the Orthodox in the audience).
Is the historical “chip on the shoulder” so divisive that folks cannot even discuss contemporary issues without polemics — not even giving JP2 or Benedict the benefit of the doubt for engaging the world in theological truths for the good of the family? (Those two heroic men were attacked roundly as ignorant and governing in bad faith.)
I am soured on even considering whatever deeper issues there may be to consider by the aggressive demeanor and basic contrariness of “rank and file” Orthodox I keep meeting. Please tell me this is an aberration.
I should clarify: when I said the Catholic Church prevailed on theology — I meant in comparison to the protestant church of which I was a part. I never had cause to investigate the Orthodox.
Paul – I’m encouraged to hear this. I have always heard that Vatican I was “ultramontanist.” Is this just a polemical misrepresentation? Perhaps I need to learn more about what “ultramontanism” really is.
GSK – I’m surprised to hear about the Orthodox reactions to the “theology of the body.” I wonder what the objections were?
My abstract is here:
Click to access KinekeGenevieve.pdf
I was surprised as well, and yet it wasn’t clear. They seemed to think I was placing too much emphasis on women, too much emphasis on the “spousal” nature of Christ and His bride the Church, and too much hope on a new “contrivance” of sorts. I understand that many loyal quarters of the Catholic Church keep it at arm’s length as well, condemning it as an upstart and unnecessary interpretation, but I think the unitive view of “Bride” as ensconsed within a visible ecclesial structure (my thesis, esp. having to do with the “feminine paradigm”) may have underscored the division. Relying on such a paradigm in this new light is muddied by a less unitive vision of the bride that necessarily accompanies Orthodox thought.
Only a guess — their reaction was from many angles, but vociferous. I think I touched a subconscious nerve.
Interesting, thank you Genevieve. I can’t imagine that any Orthodox would have a problem with the very scriptural and patristic understanding of Church as Virgin, Bride and Mother. Add to this the great respect and veneration that the Orthodox have to the Most Holy Theotokos, and it shouldn’t be difficult to make the connection that these things may have something to do with a Christian understanding of authentic femininity!
As a papal Catholic looking seriously into Orthodoxy, I would ask the following question which has bothered me: if the office of Peter is an essential feature of the universal Church, which the East is gravely wounded by lacking, why is it that it is precisely the part of the Church which has this office which has developed such doctrinal and liturgical defects as, for example, the double *eternal* procession of the Spirit, indulgences, development of the papacy as a bishop of bishops (there simply is no other honest way to construe the teachings of VI and II), a mass (the Tridentine) without an epiclesis of the Holy Spirit, the withholding of the chalice from the laity and the elaborate eucharistic theology to justify it, the allowance of such a clearly erroneous theologoumenon as limbo for unbaptized children, etc. How is it that, lacking the Petrine office, Orthodoxy has been able to avoid these errors? Joe
Re Vatican I: My understanding is that the Ultramontanes did not prevail at Vat I. They wanted a much more sweeping definition of papal infallibility. They didn’t get it. (Thank You, Holy Spirit! ;))
WRT contemporary Ultramontanists: I agree with Paul. I’m in a pretty conservative diocese (Charlotte, NC), and I hang around with pretty conservative Catholics…but I’ve met only one ultra-trad in all the years I’ve been here. He was a follower of Father Gruner, who is on the outs with the Vatican. (I don’t know whether he–Father Gruner, that is–is technically schismatic. My ultra-trad acquaintance wasn’t, AFAIK.) Anyway, this ultra-trad acquaintance once introduced me and my friends to a visiting gentleman from an organization called Tradition, Faith & Family. (I suppose he qualifies as the second Ultramontanist I’ve met–but he’s not from our diocese, so he doesn’t “count” as part of my experience of Catholicism on the rubber-meets-road local / diocesan level. Or sumpin’.) Anyway, this gentleman was quite a character: an older gent, dapper to a fault, immaculately and expensively dressed, and quite courtly, refined, and cosmopolitan. I don’t think I’ll ever forget him. I remember that, during the course of our conversation, he expressed reservations about then-Cardinal Ratzinger, who was not quite conservative enough for him. However, I must say that, in general, this gentleman did not strike me as completely over the top. Later, though, when I looked up Tradition, Faith & Family on the Internet, I discovered that they have an, er, preferential option for the rich, shall we say. I suppose they really could be seen as the heirs of the 19th-c. aristocratic European ultramontanists.
But I’d like to stress the uniqueness of this encounter. People like this gentleman are a minuscule minority in the Catholic Church. They are so few in number that they are invisible; most Catholics have never even remotely heard of them.
Most Catholics–including committed, faithful, fervent Catholics–do not get all exercised over the Latin Mass and such-like. They are far too busy living out their vocations as parents and breadwinners and involved members of local parishes. They do the practical, hands-on stuff like decorating the church, running the bake sales, organizing the food drives, teaching the faith-formation classes, and chaperoning the youth group. As one person once put it to me, most loyal Catholics do not veer either far left or far right. Instead, they walk down the center aisle–the one in which they go to receive Communion. ๐
Don’t ask me why I’m up at 2:00 in the morning…
Mr…um…Unitatis,
Seeing as I am just a college seminarian e.g. a philosophy student, I don’t feel competent to give a history of the council or defend against charges that it was an ultramontanist council. Right now, I am just trying to figure out what Aristotle said about universals, what St. Thomas thought Aristotle thought about universals, and then what my professor thought St. Thomas thought about what Aristotle thought about universals. =p
On a serious note though, I have read about Vatican I, and none of the arguments that it was an ultramontanist council sounded all that convincing. However, I do not claim to be an expert. Mike Liccione would know better than I. He’s also a really holy guy, so now you have two reasons to introduce yourself to him. He blogs at Sacramentum Vitae, and John Paul II once told him that he wished he had written an encyclical with Liccione’s blog title! Therefore, he must know what’s he’s talking about.
Joe,
It’s for the same reasons that many Orthodox theologians used to argue that Catholic baptisms weren’t valid. They saw how silly it was to say Catholic baptisms were valid while Catholic confirmations weren’t, so those few theologians threw both out. Aidan Nichols wrote about it in one of his books on East West relations. He only has about 4 books on east/west relations, and so it would be in one of those books (how’s that for an academic citation, eh?)
That’s a round-about way of saying that at least for some of those issues that you mention, kettle=pot=black. I can’t explain why some people hold a theologoumenon that seems flat out wrong. But the operative word in that sentence is “some”. However, I don’t go around blasting Orthodoxy as a whole because some of her members think or say stupid things.
For some of those other points on the list, they probably aren’t obvious errors if we have been arguing about some of them for the past 1200 years.
Orthodox and Catholics write thousand page polemics against each other about whether bread should be leavened or not before it becomes Jesus, so I highly doubt we will be able to fruitfully discuss even two of those more substantial points in a single thread. Bringing them all up at once seems like muddying the waters to me.
A great article from Nichols and good dialogue here.
Traditionalism is not really about Latin as Orthodox praxis, Anglo-Catholicism and the Anglican Use in the Roman Catholic Church show. IMO ‘they want to go back to Latin’ is a scare tactic from people hostile to traditionalism. I know that many rank-and-file churchgoers don’t want Latin. No problem! The English Missal is yours for the asking.
(In some international, multilingual pilgrim destinations like Rome and Lourdes using Latin makes sense: it’s everybody’s and nobody’s language at the same time, an international second language. That’s why the Protestant monks at Taizรฉ eventually adopted it at least for their singing. Though you can argue today that English does that job in the secular world so why not in church?)
The Roman Canon usually (except in some local versions where it may have been added on) doesn’t have an explicit descending epiklesis, a sign (I’m told) it’s older than the two Byzantine Rite anaphorรฆ.
AFAIK Rome at least today does not teach an eternal double procession. I understand if you translated the filioque literally into Greek it reads as though it does, exactly the horrible thing Orthodox say it says. Which is why the official Greek version of the Nicene Creed in the RC Church has never had it! The filioque obviously doesn’t belong in the Eastern rites.
Indulgences are simply an application of canonical enance, a concept Eastern as well as Western.
The chalice for the laity is a matter of rite, of discipline, not doctrine and the Christian East (Orthodox, Orientals and Assyrians) believes not only in the complete Real Presence just like Rome but also concomitance: the whole Christ is in every particle of either the consecrated bread or wine.
Limbo is opinion just like the Orthodox one about the toll-houses at the particular judgement; there’s nothing really wrong with either.
Regarding ‘the centre is always right’, the good middle way, I hear you but remember what Newman found out IIRC: at one time the Monophysites were one extreme, the Catholics the other and the Monothelites the middle. So it ain’t necessarily so.
Ultramontanism is real.
Indulgences are simply an application of canonical enance, a concept Eastern as well as Western.
That’s canonical penance.
Young Fogey, thanks for the comments. It’s good to cut through some of the caricatures that Orthodox and Catholics often have about each other. As to the issue of Ultramontanism, I will have a new post sometime today.
Come to think of it, Mr. Unitatis, that Aidan Nichols book that I mentioned earlier had the same icon on the cover that you use for your avatar. Even though I can’t enlarge your avatar, it is of Peter embracing Andrew, right?
Paul โ
Thanks for bringing things back to Nichols! ๐ I haven’t been able to get my hands on any of the Nichols books you mention. I assume that they are out of print. I think I’ll look for a used one online, along with the unabridged Soloviev work Russia and the Universal Church (rather than the abridged version currently in print, The Russian Church and the Papacy).
On the avatar, I guess it doesn’t look too good when it’s so small! I might find another one. But, yes, it is of Peter embracing Andrew. I vaguely recall that there is a story behind it (given by some Orthodox prelate to a Catholic one, or perhaps the other way around).
Cathedraunitatis, I’m sure you have already read Balthasar’s *The Office of Peter*; but if you haven’t, I commend it. I also commend de Lubac’s *The Motherhood of the Church*, Soloviev’s *The Russian Church and the Papacy*, Newman’s *Letter to the Duke of Norfolk*, and Ratzinger’s *Called to Communion*. But my guess is that you already immersed in them.
Stanley Hauerwas likes to quip that only the Pope could keep the Irish and Italians in the same Church. Ditto for the Dominicans, Franciscans, and Jesuits. This is the gift of a divinely ordained center of unity–it makes possible true catholicity. In its absence, churches must always reduce catholicity and breadth in order to maintain unity and theological coherence.
If I can be of any assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Perhaps we need to be more clear about what we mean by the word “ultramontane.” I was using it in the vague sense of justifying anything simply because one’s bishop happens to be in communion with Rome.
Jack, I am working on a post on Ultramontanism. I hope to start an interesting discussion there.
Thank you, CU.
Itโs good to cut through some of the caricatures that Orthodox and [Western] Catholics often have about each other.
That’s the idea behind this page.
Mr. Unitatis, if you know of any Catholic seminaries close to where you live, they would surely have them. Nichols is “all the rage” nowadays, and my seminary’s library, carried all of his books.
Also, I think Nichols recounts the story behind that icon in the introduction to his book. I’ll see if I can find the title for you.
Well that didn’t take me long.
The name of the book is “Rome and the Eastern Churches: a study in schism”.
Amen to Diane’s comments. Living the faith, as opposed to reading about the faith (by which I get sidetracked constantly) is all-consuming if done well. When these faithful Catholics (up to their elbows in family, schooling, etc) do turn to the fine points of catechesis, it’s often to ask a question about the validity of a particular marriage, the details of a sex-ed program, or for help in arguing against same-sex unions. All “trench warfare” material. It’s a luxury to be able to look backwards — as long as one is being fed liturgically, sacramentally, of course.
Stanley Hauerwas likes to quip that only the Pope could keep the Irish and Italians in the same Church.
LOL, Father Kimel. As an Irish-Italian, I resemble that. (Isn’t everyone from Boston an Irish-Italian?) ๐
Sorry for extreme off-topic-ness. ๐
Mr Unitatis:
1. I’m delighted to see so many of the usual suspects visiting this blog. It’s just what I had been hoping for when I posted about you at Sacramentum Vitae!
2. Paul Hamilton now studies at the same DC seminary where I taught a course on the philosophy of God 17 years ago. On the whole, I found the students there to be more Catholic than the faculty. That was a source of some bewilderment for the former, of some annoyance for the latter, and of some cynicism for both. Friends in DC, both clerical and lay, tell me that little has changed. (That is confirmed by the young priest who was most recently my regular confessor, who assured me that I was such a challenging penitent that he was forced to learn to hear confessions by having to deal with me. He graduated from the seminary in question in May 2005. A truly holy and zealous young priest, and an exceptionally good preacher. As a reward for his sterling qualities, Bishop Jugis has sent him back to DC to get a joint canon-and-civil law degree. Sigh. Paul needs to look him up.
I like Paul, but I must strongly object to his characterization of me as holy. If I agreed with him, I would be refuting both of us! Any dollop of holiness I might possess is known to God alone and has been pounded into me by misfortunes brought on largely by my own sins and failings.
3. The term ‘ultramontane’ differs in meaning depending on who is using it. During the decades prior to Vatican I, it was used by Gallicans the way progs now use the term ‘conservative’. Just as progs call “conservatives” anybody to their right, trads and neoCaths alike, so ‘ultramontane’ was first to mean any view of the papacy higher than that implied by conciliarism. The real ultramontanes, of course, did not prevail at Vatican I and lost further ground at Vatican II.
4. Don’t worry about Joe, the Catholic-veering-toward-Orthodoxy. I’ve had quite enough experience with him, both at Pontifications and SV, to know that his interpretations of Catholic doctrine and practice are often inaccurate. Indeed, I often find the same to be the case among Orthodox who attack Catholic doctrine, especially about papal primacy. More than half the battle is simply getting people to understand what the Catholic Church actually teaches, which is not the same as their interpretations.
Best,
Mike
Paul – Thanks. I will look for the book.
Father Kimel – Thanks for your comment. Your blog has been very helpful to me. I am currently reading Balthasar’s book right now, and I will definitely check out the other books soon. Please stop by now and then and offer your two cents!
Mike – Thanks again for the link on Sacramentum Vitae. I’ve been overwhelmed by all of the attention! ๐ I look forward to your take on my post about Ultramontanism.
Mike, I didn’t know that you taught philosophy at CUA/ for Theological College seminarians. I guess I’ll shoot you an email.
In defense of CUA, the philosophy program is very Catholic. I won’t say anything about the theology program at CUA because I might get in trouble for it by my bosses on the seminary side of the street. On the positive side though, the faculty is not nearly as crazy as it was in the 60’s through the 80’s.
>Donโt worry about Joe, the Catholic-veering-toward-Orthodoxy. Iโve had quite enough experience with him, both at Pontifications and SV, to know that his interpretations of Catholic doctrine and practice are often inaccurate.
Mike- Please give one example of the above. It is true that I disagree with some of your interpretations of some points of Catholic doctrine- that does not justify your statement.
On the other hand, I can name specifically where you’ve misrepresented at least one aspect of Thomistic teaching: you have continued to assert on your blog that Aquinas had a teaching on implicit faith for those born outside the Catholic Church after the Incarnation, when I’ve referred you to passages in Aquinas that show that such is not the case. Joe
OK, folks, let’s not go there! ๐
>OK, folks, letโs not go there!
I’m sorry, I honestly am, but I felt like my credibility was being impugned.
I am sorry if my initial post read like a “laundry list” of problems I have with Rome. That wasn’t my intention. For the record, I agree completely with your main point that both east and west have been gravely harmed by the schism. I maintain such constantly both to both my Catholic and my Orthodox friends. Joe
Joe – I’m not taking sides, or accusing you of anything; I’m just making sure that things don’t get too personal or out-of-control.