Modernism in the Orthodox Church

[PadraigPearce]

There is obviously a huge “progressive” faction within the Catholic Church, pushing for things like women’s ordination, same sex marriage, etc. I don’t see the same progressives operating within the Orthodox Churches, and I was wondering why that is. I can’t even imagine people in the Orthodox getting together and pretending to ordain each other as women priests, but we seem to have Catholics doing these things all the time. Eastern Orthodox folks, any thoughts? (And I’m not looking for responses from Catholics or Orthodox about the legitimacy of our respective churches. Those kinds of answers usually spiral out of control and the thread ends up getting deleted eventually).

 

[Maria65]

Perhaphs because the Orthodox are more…er…orthodox?

 

[ralphinal]

There is not a HUGE group that wants that. The media spins it that way.

to be honest, most Catholics are not motivated enough to want to change anything.

Do not discount the cultural difference between the Orthodox Churches and the Catholic Church, especially in North America.

 

[PadraigPearce]

There is not a HUGE group that wants that. The media spins it that way.

to be honest, most Catholics are not motivated enough to want to change anything.

Do not discount the cultural difference between the Orthodox Churches and the Catholic Church, especially in North America.

The laity in the Catholic Church may not be pushing for change, but some priests and bishops and especially Catholic theologians have been pushing modernism since before Vatican II. The laity pretty much go along with what their shepherds tell them, so we’ve ended up with large numbers of people doubting, for example, the Church’s stance on birth control based on what their priests told them. Or believing they could be pro choice and still take communion. For some reason the Orthodox seem have been able to keep unorthodox theologians at bay, or at tleast that’s my impression. I understand cultural differences may have played a large part, and the Church in Russia was underground for so long it couldn’t really develop at all,but maybe it’s because theologians aren’t given as much leeway in the Orthodox Church.

 

[ralphinal]

The laity in the Catholic Church may not be pushing for change, but some priests and bishops and especially Catholic theologians have been pushing modernism since before Vatican II. The laity pretty much go along with what their shepherds tell them, so we’ve ended up with large numbers of people doubting, for example, the Church’s stance on birth control based on what their priests told them. Or believing they could be pro choice and still take communion. For some reason the Orthodox seem have been able to keep unorthodox theologians at bay, or at tleast that’s my impression. I understand cultural differences may have played a large part, and the Church in Russia was underground for so long it couldn’t really develop at all,but maybe it’s because theologians aren’t given as much leeway in the Orthodox Church.

I think that the cultural aspect is huge. In America (and Canada), the idea that we will not be told what to do is so ingrained within us.

 

[crazzeto]

The laity in the Catholic Church may not be pushing for change, but some priests and bishops and especially Catholic theologians have been pushing modernism since before Vatican II. The laity pretty much go along with what their shepherds tell them, so we’ve ended up with large numbers of people doubting, for example, the Church’s stance on birth control based on what their priests told them. Or believing they could be pro choice and still take communion. For some reason the Orthodox seem have been able to keep unorthodox theologians at bay, or at tleast that’s my impression. I understand cultural differences may have played a large part, and the Church in Russia was underground for so long it couldn’t really develop at all,but maybe it’s because theologians aren’t given as much leeway in the Orthodox Church.

Which ones? Can you name any? More over, we don’t have a strong Orthodox presense here, so don’t be fooled into thinking they don’t have the same issues of some elements pushing moderism. In fact they have these problems (do some reading). But at the end of the day, no such teaching has been, or will be ever endorsed by the Catholic Church.

We had a period of bad formation here in the States. It’s debateable how long it’s been going on. But with Pope Benidict, it would seem that this issue as well as restoration of the Liturgy are top priorities.

BTW if you ever meet any layity holding such views, don’t be afraid to correct them.

Edit
In fact I find it interesting that you cite the Russian Orthodox Church… They’re specifically the ones which sent an emmisarry recently to the Vatican to discuss how the two churches can work together to combat this specific problem. Does this sound to you, like a church not suffering the effects of encroaching modernism?

 

[Nine_Two]

Pretty much anyone who brings up innovations to doctrine gets shouted down hard. Some do make the comments, but it never goes anywhere.

I think part of the reason is that Western Bishops are supposed to hold more authority than Eastern Bishops. Eastern Bishops are to be respected and obeyed, but if they say something unorthodox the people have no reason to listen to them, and processes exist by which they can lose their position. In the West only a Bishop of higher authority can contradict a Bishop.

 

[brigantine]

There is progressives operating in the various Orthodox Churches. They operate in different ways than the Catholic Church but they are there. Some of the innovations are different but they are innovations none the less.

Also, the Orthodox Church has its Liturgy still in tact and fairly uniform so from the outside looking in it looks good to go. Go to an Orthodox Church and listen to the people and you will see some of the progressives. Go to the largest Orthodox forum on the web and start a post saying your against gay marriage and see the kind of responses you get.

I left the Catholic Church 11 years ago because of the progressive ideology I perceived the Catholic Church moving towards. Over my time in the Orthodox Church I realized the grass is not always greener in other pastures.

 

[brigantine]

I don’t want to leave the impression the Orthodox Church has the same progressive issues the Catholic Church has because it does not. It does have issues though. The biggest thing that protects the Orthodox Church from an all out progressive assault like the Catholic Church has is its Liturgy. The Liturgy is the life of the Church and Pope Benedict XVI has said the same. When the OF is does correctly it can be beautiful but if abuses are done it hurts the entire body of the Church. You don’t have these abuses with the Liturgy in Orthodoxy. Hopefully this Pope standardizes the OF and uses some good old excommunications to drive the point home.

 

[LJinPA]

I’ve never been to an Orthodox church so most of what I know about it is from reading, though I have read a lot in the past few years about it. One thing I have observed seems to be paradox. On one hand these Churches seem to talk of the West being “legalistic”, too much scholasticism, and how the East has a more theraputic view of salvation. Any polemics I’ve observed seem to be east vs. west rather than “conservative vs liberal”. Yet if you read the fine print the Eastern churches seem far more strict as far as cannon law, confession, liturgy, and especially fasting.
I haven’t found many dissenting opinions in Orthodoxy on the essentials yet I don’t hear as much about politics or telling people how to vote in Orthodoxy either.

I have see surveys done in the US showing political views of the Orthodox pretty similar to those of American Roman Catholics. It doesn’t seem to be as alligned with the political right to the extent that white evangelicals and traditional Catholics are (and maybe some evangelical converts to Orthodoxy). It seems more mystical.
I grew up around a lot of Russian Orthodox but rarely talked to them about their faith. I’m not sure to what extent they dissent in private compared to Catholics or how many members are nominal. I was little when Dukakis ran for president but he was pro-choice and Orthodox though I don’t think he was excommunicated or if any Bill Donahue types went after him for public dissent.
I also never saw a chatechism that clearly defines whats mandatory whats not, whats venial, whats mortal, whats absolute or whats not or what is mandatory to go to heaven, or how one knows if they’re in a state of grace or not. The Padallion is the closest thing I know of.

From the sites I read it seems they do enforce cannon law and the strictest thing seems to be confession of all sin-not just venial to receive communion and a lot of power given to the “spiritual guide” or confessor even compared to RC’s. Could this be what keeps things in line? Oriental Orthodox websites seem to be even more strict.
I think the East has different paradigms so it may be hard to compare.

Anyone more familiar please correct me, these are just my general observations I’m making out of curiosity trying to figure it out better.

 

[Nine_Two]

I’ve never been to an Orthodox church so most of what I know about it is from reading, though I have read a lot in the past few years about it. One thing I have observed seems to be paradox. On one hand these Churches seem to talk of the West being “legalistic”, too much scholasticism, and how the East has a more theraputic view of salvation. Any polemics I’ve observed seem to be east vs. west rather than “conservative vs liberal”. Yet if you read the fine print the Eastern churches seem far more strict as far as cannon law, confession, liturgy, and especially fasting.
I haven’t found many dissenting opinions in Orthodoxy on the essentials yet I don’t hear as much about politics or telling people how to vote in Orthodoxy either.

Orthodoxy appears very strict from the outside, however it is very much about following the spirit of the law, rather than the letter of it. An example of this is the fasting rules. It is quite possible to be a glutton while maintaining the letter of Orthodox fasting laws. Two meals a day of proscribed food, but nothing is ever said about how big those meals are. You could wake up, eat for five hours straight, take a two hour break, eat for another five hours straight, go to bed, and still be within the letter of the law, however you have without a doubt violated the spirit of the law.

I have see surveys done in the US showing political views of the Orthodox pretty similar to those of American Roman Catholics. It doesn’t seem to be as alligned with the political right to the extent that white evangelicals and traditional Catholics are (and maybe some evangelical converts to Orthodoxy). It seems more mystical.
I grew up around a lot of Russian Orthodox but rarely talked to them about their faith. I’m not sure to what extent they dissent in private compared to Catholics or how many members are nominal. I was little when Dukakis ran for president but he was pro-choice and Orthodox though I don’t think he was excommunicated or if any Bill Donahue types went after him for public dissent.
I also never saw a chatechism that clearly defines whats mandatory whats not, whats venial, whats mortal, whats absolute or whats not or what is mandatory to go to heaven, or how one knows if they’re in a state of grace or not. The Padallion is the closest thing I know of.

In my experience there is more mystacism in mainstream Orthodoxy. Catholicism has its equivalents, but it just isn’t within the mainstream. As for pro-choice politicians, I don’t think there is any grounds for excommunicating them. If I publicly said that I think murder is alright, I would have no shortage of people trying to convince me otherwise, but unless I actually commit the murder or encourage others to, I’ve done nothing wrong, so I wouldn’t risk any punishment. The only views one might be punished on are views that are doctrinaly heretical - like if I said I believe God is a mountain goat, I’m a heretic and would need to repent.
I’m not aware of any formal catechism, nor any plans to make one. I think this is another good example of legalism. We just don’t codify that sort of stuff. Now Metropolitan Kalistos Ware’s book, “The Orthodox Church” is often used as a catechisis, but it isn’t anything close to what Catholics have.

From the sites I read it seems they do enforce cannon law and the strictest thing seems to be confession of all sin-not just venial to receive communion and a lot of power given to the “spiritual guide” or confessor even compared to RC’s. Could this be what keeps things in line? Oriental Orthodox websites seem to be even more strict.
I think the East has different paradigms so it may be hard to compare.

Pretty much. You confess all the sins you’re aware of in the presence of the confessor (usually a parish priest) and then get absolution. They can deny you the eucharist if they see fit, or impose a penence they believe will be benificial. Not sure how this compares to the Roman Catholic Church, since I’ve never been through the experience there, although I imagine it’s similar to some Eastern Catholic Churches.

Anyone more familiar please correct me, these are just my general observations I’m making out of curiosity trying to figure it out better.

They seem pretty accurate. I may have overlooked or oversimplifed some things, if I have I apologize, but for a basic understanding it seems pretty good.

 

[crazzeto]

regarding pro-choice politicians… I guess I agree that there is no grounds to excommunicate that I know of, not being a cannon lawyer… But if there is away, I’d have to say Kennedy is well on his way there.

 

[Harpazo]

I don’t want to leave the impression the Orthodox Church has the same progressive issues the Catholic Church has because it does not. It does have issues though. The biggest thing that protects the Orthodox Church from an all out progressive assault like the Catholic Church has is its Liturgy. The Liturgy is the life of the Church and Pope Benedict XVI has said the same. When the OF is does correctly it can be beautiful but if abuses are done it hurts the entire body of the Church. You don’t have these abuses with the Liturgy in Orthodoxy. Hopefully this Pope standardizes the OF and uses some good old excommunications to drive the point home.

I agree with this. I have noticed that there is a greater respect for Tradition, vis-a-vis the Liturgy amongst Orthodox, than many Catholics I know. This is not to say that Catholics do not respect the Liturgy, I just noticed in my interactions with Orthodox and Catholics (in real life, mind you) that Orthodox are more wont to not want to fiddle with the Liturgy.

I am glad to say that it looks as if the RCC is starting to turn a corner on this, however.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[imkingdad]

There is obviously a huge “progressive” faction within the Catholic Church, pushing for things like women’s ordination, same sex marriage, etc. I don’t see the same progressives operating within the Orthodox Churches, and I was wondering why that is. I can’t even imagine people in the Orthodox getting together and pretending to ordain each other as women priests, but we seem to have Catholics doing these things all the time. Eastern Orthodox folks, any thoughts? (And I’m not looking for responses from Catholics or Orthodox about the legitimacy of our respective churches. Those kinds of answers usually spiral out of control and the thread ends up getting deleted eventually).

---

My first thoughts center around the cultural differences found in the Orthodox Churches & their original national Churches.

Dissent in the “old” country especially around Religion carried a different set of opprobrium than here in America. Our cultural malaise, Our expectation of freedom
of speech ( even crazy speech), & the total disregard for traditional things that have evolved here within the past 50 some years would tend to lend itself to those types of errant & illogical thought processes. Nations that were/are used to autocratic types of leadership have different mechanisms for handling change and
dissent that we here in America have never really experienced hence lack the insight & wisdom of those people that have had to cope in such situations.

The misapplication of Freedom as License has resulted in many problematic attempts to manipulate Church, society & culture here in America and that same “License” has been seeping into other nations, Religions and cultures as well.

I hope this is more to the point of your Question than some of the other answers I’ve seen. Regards, Yours in Christ.

 

[Hesychios]

Which ones? Can you name any? More over, we don’t have a strong Orthodox presense here, so don’t be fooled into thinking they don’t have the same issues of some elements pushing moderism. In fact they have these problems (do some reading).

That’s a pretty bold claim. I am quite interested in the assertion. Quite frankly, I don’t think most Orthodox would understand religious modernism if you placed the definition in front of them.

It is simply not part of the Orthodox mindset for one thing. I think that one must be of a mind to accept changes in explanations of the Faith before one can be open to the errors that are called Modernism.

A reflection on the theology of Latin Catholicism according to the old Catholic Encyclopedia:
Assuredly Catholic truth is not a lifeless thing. Rather is it a living tree that breaks forth into green leaves, flowers, and fruits. There is a development, or gradual unfolding, and a clearer statement of its dogmas. Besides the primary truths, such as the Divinity of Christ and His mission as Messias, there are others which, one by one, become better understood and defined…

The definition of Modernism according to the old Catholic Encyclopedia:

Theory of theological Modernism **
The essential error of Modernism**

A full definition of modernism would be rather difficult. First it stands for certain tendencies, and secondly for a body of doctrine which, if it has not given birth to these tendencies (practice often precedes theory), serves at any rate as their explanation and support. Such tendencies manifest themselves in different domains. They are not united in each individual, nor are they always and everywhere found together. Modernist doctrine, too, may be more or less radical, and it is swallowed in doses that vary with each one’s likes and dislikes. In the Encyclical “Pascendi”, Pius X says that modernism embraces every heresy.

and…

The general idea of modernism may be best expressed in the words of Abbate Cavallanti, though even here there is a little vagueness: “Modernism is modern in a false sense of the word; it is a morbid state of conscience among Catholics, and especially young Catholics, that professes manifold ideals, opinions, and tendencies. From time to time these tendencies work out into systems, that are to renew the basis and superstructure of society, politics, philosophy, theology, of the Church herself and of the Christian religion”.

Modernist propositions explained by its essential error

We make a selection of the following propositions from the Encyclical for discussion:

• the Christ of faith is not the Christ of history. Faith portrays Christ according to the religious needs of the faithful; history represents Him as He really was, that is, in so far as His appearance on earth was a concrete phenomenon. In this way it is easy to understand how a believer may, without contradiction, attribute certain things to Christ, and at the same time deny them in the quality of historian. In the “Hibbert Journal” for Jan., 1909, the Rev. Mr. Robert wished to call the Christ of history “Jesus” and reserve “Christ” for the same person as idealized by faith;
• Christ’s work in founding the Church and instituting the sacraments was mediate, not immediate. The main point is to find supports for the faith. Now, as religious experience succeeds so well in creating useful dogmas, why may it not do likewise in the matter of institutions suited to the age?
• The sacraments act as eloquent formulae which touch the soul and carry it away. Precisely; for if dogmas exist only in so far as they preserve religious sentiment, what other service can one expect of the sacraments?
• The Sacred Books are in every religion a collection of religious experiences of an extraordinary nature. For if there is no external revelation, the only substitute possible is the subjective religious experience of men of particular gifts, experiences such as are worthy of being preserved for the community.

PASCENDI and LAMENTABILI SANE for reference.

Can you cite some examples of modernism in Holy Orthodoxy? Perhaps you can cite some examples in modern Latin Catholicism and then show us an Orthodox equivalent?

 

[Hesychios]

Which ones? Can you name any? More over, we don’t have a strong Orthodox presense here, so don’t be fooled into thinking they don’t have the same issues of some elements pushing moderism. In fact they have these problems (do some reading).

That’s a pretty bold claim. I am quite interested in the assertion. Quite frankly, I don’t think most Orthodox would understand religious modernism if you placed the definition in front of them.

It is simply not part of the Orthodox mindset for one thing. I think that one must be of a mind to accept changes in explanations of the Faith before one can be open to the errors that are called Modernism.

A reflection on the theology of Latin Catholicism according to the old Catholic Encyclopedia:
Assuredly Catholic truth is not a lifeless thing. Rather is it a living tree that breaks forth into green leaves, flowers, and fruits. There is a development, or gradual unfolding, and a clearer statement of its dogmas. Besides the primary truths, such as the Divinity of Christ and His mission as Messias, there are others which, one by one, become better understood and defined…

The definition of Modernism according to the old Catholic Encyclopedia:

Theory of theological Modernism **
The essential error of Modernism**

A full definition of modernism would be rather difficult. First it stands for certain tendencies, and secondly for a body of doctrine which, if it has not given birth to these tendencies (practice often precedes theory), serves at any rate as their explanation and support. Such tendencies manifest themselves in different domains. They are not united in each individual, nor are they always and everywhere found together. Modernist doctrine, too, may be more or less radical, and it is swallowed in doses that vary with each one’s likes and dislikes. In the Encyclical “Pascendi”, Pius X says that modernism embraces every heresy.

and…

The general idea of modernism may be best expressed in the words of Abbate Cavallanti, though even here there is a little vagueness: “Modernism is modern in a false sense of the word; it is a morbid state of conscience among Catholics, and especially young Catholics, that professes manifold ideals, opinions, and tendencies. From time to time these tendencies work out into systems, that are to renew the basis and superstructure of society, politics, philosophy, theology, of the Church herself and of the Christian religion”.

Modernist propositions explained by its essential error

We make a selection of the following propositions from the Encyclical for discussion:

• the Christ of faith is not the Christ of history. Faith portrays Christ according to the religious needs of the faithful; history represents Him as He really was, that is, in so far as His appearance on earth was a concrete phenomenon. In this way it is easy to understand how a believer may, without contradiction, attribute certain things to Christ, and at the same time deny them in the quality of historian. In the “Hibbert Journal” for Jan., 1909, the Rev. Mr. Robert wished to call the Christ of history “Jesus” and reserve “Christ” for the same person as idealized by faith;
• Christ’s work in founding the Church and instituting the sacraments was mediate, not immediate. The main point is to find supports for the faith. Now, as religious experience succeeds so well in creating useful dogmas, why may it not do likewise in the matter of institutions suited to the age?
• The sacraments act as eloquent formulae which touch the soul and carry it away. Precisely; for if dogmas exist only in so far as they preserve religious sentiment, what other service can one expect of the sacraments?
• The Sacred Books are in every religion a collection of religious experiences of an extraordinary nature. For if there is no external revelation, the only substitute possible is the subjective religious experience of men of particular gifts, experiences such as are worthy of being preserved for the community.

PASCENDI and LAMENTABILI SANE for reference.

Of course, I am not claiming that it is impossible for what is called ‘Modernism’ in this context to exist in the Orthodox Christian community. It’s just that my experience tells me that it is not a major concern.

Can you cite some examples of modernism in Holy Orthodoxy? Perhaps you can cite some examples in modern Latin Catholicism and then show us an Orthodox equivalent?

 

[crazzeto]

Not so bold a claim if you have google

orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/Modernism.pdf

Looks like the Orthodox Church is well aware of, well affected by and currently combating modernism. Just like every other Church on the planet. But hey, at least y’all are better off than the Protestants.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

There is obviously a huge “progressive” faction within the Catholic Church, pushing for things like women’s ordination, same sex marriage, etc. I don’t see the same progressives operating within the Orthodox Churches, and I was wondering why that is. I can’t even imagine people in the Orthodox getting together and pretending to ordain each other as women priests, but we seem to have Catholics doing these things all the time. Eastern Orthodox folks, any thoughts? (And I’m not looking for responses from Catholics or Orthodox about the legitimacy of our respective churches. Those kinds of answers usually spiral out of control and the thread ends up getting deleted eventually).

In the Americas, I’ve heard that in 2006 it was documented that Orthodoxy was the fastest growing Christian religion. It is definitely heavily populated by people of “Western” mind-set and yet it is not overflowing with rebellion as we see, and you refer to above, in the Catholic Church today.

In the Catholic Church today you see people rebelling in both directions - some claiming to be more Catholic than the Pope & others claiming that Papacy is outdated.

The root cause, I believe, is that people tend to have a rebellious spirit against human authority in general.

The leader of the Catholic Church is a man, one human Bishop - human authority.

Yet the leader of the Orthodox Church remains to be Jesus Christ Himself - authority not of this world.

When you answer to the Highest Authority…you do all you can to keep yourself in check.

 

[Mickey]

I do not think the Orthodox Church faces the same nightmare of modernism as the Roman Catholic Church. Sure, you will see pockets, but Holy Orthodoxy is pretty good about staying true to the teachings of the Holy Fathers and weeding out the innovations. But we cannot get complacent. The devil is always prowling. We must be watchful. It seems to be getting out of control in the RCC especially with nuns who operate retreat centers teaching things like: Enneagram, Mandalas, labyrinth walking, reiki, and eco-spirituality. Also, I believe that the Roman Catholic charismatic movement is an aping of the protestant charismatic revivalist sects.

 

[ralphinal]

AS long as Orthodoxy in America remains small, the problem is minimized. Should it really grow, you are more likely to encounter the goofballs.

Someone said that as many as 25% of people are outright loons. If that is true, the small the population you draw from, the less loons you have.