This stance goes a long way to explain a lot about how of Catholics and Orthodox fail to relate to each other, and hence why there seems to be even more animus (not euphemistic enough?
) between Catholics and Orthodox than between Catholics and Protestants. It is painfully obvious that the two churches, at least at official levels if not always as individuals (though many times on that level too; see, for instance, Rueben J’s post), completely lack a sense of shared perspective on just what the faith is and isn’t. From the Orthodox point of view, at least as far as I’ve read of it, a few things trump any amount of similarity that can be argued for (if I’ve got any of this wrong, I trust Mick or another Orthodox poster will correct me):
Nothing to disagree with, so far.
Catholics have added to the Nicene Creed and practiced and continue to practice other unnecessary, unorthodox innovations. This effectively places them outside the Orthodox faith.
Absolutely.
Protestantism is effectively a “Latin problem”. The Protestant churches budded off completely from within the Latin Church, and hence are more like it than the Orthodox Church. The Orthodox Church ought to be taken on its own merits, none of this “two lungs” business.
Right. Orthodoxy never needed to be reformed or counter–reformed because it remained the same. So it has never needed outside help in order to breathe. Is there any dispute about this?
It seems to me that the Catholic Church is structured in such a way that it allows decisions from above to be
imposed upon the faithful. Catholics do not seem to perceive anything unusual or undesirable in this state of affairs. In fact, they seem to thrive on it. I daresay that from a young age every Catholic hears over and over terms such as
Holy Father, Vicar of Christ, Chair of Peter, The Rock, and so on. There is within Catholicism a very strong orientation toward Rome as the embodiment of all Truth. It follows that every Catholic will grow into that mentality and eventually be unable to think in any other terms.
Rome has spoken therefore the case is closed.
Orthodoxy posits a different mentality. Firstly, there exists no bishop with the authority to impose anything. Secondly, there is never any change that has to be implemented. What changes are needed inside Orthodoxy? None. The Orthodox Church “works” just fine. Whatever minor changes have occurred in Orthodoxy over the past thousand years – such as liturgical changes, vestments, music, and so on – these have all happened very gradually from the “bottom up" as part of a gradual, natural process. They have not been
imposed.
For all the hand wringing in the RCC about how the Church needs to be reunited, there is precious little evidence of anything actually being done about it. The Latin Church prefers to court Protestants (which makes sense in light of the previous point) and various non-Christian groups, degrading even her own traditions and performing all sorts of pretzel logic on her own historical positions in order to make friends, than to seriously sit down and examine just what must be done in order for union of East and West to occur. It’s not going to come about by the CC offering communion to Orthodox should they need it (the vast majority of Orthodox would never accept it, anyway) and engaging in a lot of talk about sister churches. You truly want reunion? Repent of heresy and jettison any and all doctrinal developments incompatible with the historical faith shared by East and West when we were actually united. Anything less is not going to cut it. As it is, it does not seem that the RCC is serious.
Whatever the official Catholic line might be, I personally do not want to have Catholic doctrines that I’ve carefully examined and eventually rejected (for example, purgatory, Indulgences, and the division of sins into mortal and venial sins) foisted upon me – and it seems to me that’s the sort of reunion that many Catholics have in mind.
I can especially relate to the last point, and not just because I wrote it (I’m basing it on what Orthodox writings and people tell me, anyway). Long before admitting to myself that I had rather soured on the Catholic Church, I spent countless hours in conversation with my priest and other Catholics trying to resolve in my own mind the issues that divide the two communions. I was ultimately unsuccessful, and now I see why: You can’t get there from here. There is no orthodoxy in the Catholic Church, because orthodoxy does not seem to me a matter of degree. You cannot be orthodox in one aspect (i.e., accepting the ecumenical councils) and off on your own making your own proclamations on some other set of issues. I’ve noticed on this board that most of the things that Catholics (or at least Latins) concern themselves with aren’t even issues for the Orthodox, anyway. This is why I’ve taken to framing my questions regarding Latin doctrines in terms of
necessity – sure, you
can argue for this or that (after all, anyone can argue for or against anything, and generally back it up with selective and self-serving ECF and scripture quotes), but why is it necessary to do so? I guess this goes back to scholasticism vs. mysticism (or whatever the antonym of scholasticism is). I love dictionaries as much as the next linguist, but I leave work at work.
I think we’re on the same sheet of music (can you sing bass?
). Catholics and Orthodox Christians approach with fundamentally different mindsets. Catholics could not live without a pope and Orthodox Christians could not live with one. I respectfully suggest that we are too far along into history for it ever to be any other way.
Cordially,
Mick
:byzsoc: there is an ancient way of describing the two churches as being the east lung and the west lung which compliment each other.