The Myth of Schism

  • Thread starter Thread starter dvdjs
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

dvdjs

Guest
Excerpts from an article entitled The Myth of Schism, by Orthodox, theologian David Bentley Hart caught my eye on another board. I think that his call is like that of Fr Taft: to stop the historical revisionism and myth-making that consolidates rather than heals
schism. He touches on mythical postures on both sides - eg celibacy and sacramental economy. He words are pointed: I haven’t read anything this frank in introspection from an Orthodox, theologian. A breath of fresh air. Some highlights with lots of food for thought:
As regards my own communion, I must reluctantly report that there are some Eastern Christians who have become incapable of defining what it is to be Orthodox except in contradistinction to Roman Catholicism; … For such as these, there can never be any limit set to the number of grievances that need to be cited against Rome, nor any act of contrition on the part of Rome sufficient for absolution. There was something inherently strange in the spectacle of John Paul asking pardon for the 1204 sack of Constantinople and its sequel; but there is something inherently unseemly in the refusal of certain Eastern polemicists to allow the episode to sink back to the level of utter irrelevancy to which it belongs. (In any event, I eagerly await the day when the Patriarch of Constantinople, in a gesture of unqualified Christian contrition, makes public penance for the brutal mass slaughter of the metic Latin Christians of Byzantium - men, women and children - at the rise of Andronicus I Comnenus in 1182, and the sale of thousands of them into slavery to the Turks. Frankly, when all is said and done, the sack of 1204 was a rather mild recompense for that particular abomination, I would think).
Click to expand...
…
Click to expand...
Thus, when a certain kind of militantly conservative Catholic priest is heard to claim that the celibate priesthood was the universal practice of the early Church, established by Christ in his apostles, and that therefore even married Catholic priests of the Eastern rites possess defective orders, the historically astute among us should recognize that such a delusion is possible only for a person having no understanding of the priesthood more sophisticated than his pristine boyish memories of Fr O’Reilly’s avuncular geniality, and the shining example of his contented bachelorhood, and the calm authority with which he presided over the life of the parish of St Anne of Green Gables
Click to expand...
…
Click to expand...
Similarly, when a certain kind of Greek Orthodox anti-papal demagogue claims that the Eastern Church has always rejected the validity of the sacraments of the “Latin schismatics,” or that the real church schism dates back to the eight century when the Orthodox Church became estranged from the Roman over the latter’s “rejection” of the (14th-century) distinction between God’s essence and energies, the historically literate among us should recognize that what he takes to be apostolic Orthodoxy is in fact based upon ecclesiological and sacramental principles that reach back only to 1755, and upon principles of theological interpretation first enunciated in 1942
Click to expand...
…
Click to expand...
In truth, the most unpleasant aspect of the current state of the division between East and West is the sheer inventiveness with which those ardently committed to that division have gone about fabricating ever profounder and more radical reasons for it. Our distant Christian forbears were content to despise one another over the most minimal of matters - leavened or unleavened Eucharistic bread, for instance, or veneration of unconsecrated elements - without ever bothering to suppose that these differences were symptomatic of anything deeper than themselves. Today, however, a grand mythology has evolved … I do not believe that, before the middle of the 20the century, claims were ever made regarding the nature of the division as radical as those one finds not only in the works of inane agitators like the altogether absurd and execrable John Romanides, but also in the works of theologians of genuine stature, such as Dumitru Staniloae, Vladimir Lossky, or John Zizioulas in the East or Erich Przywara or Hans Urs von Balthasar in the West; and until those claims are defeated - as well they should be, as they are without exception entirely fanciful - we cannot reasonably hope for anything but impasse.
Click to expand...
…
Click to expand...
Now, speaking only for my tradition, I think I can identify fairly easily where Orthodox theology has fallen prey to this mythology. Eastern Orthodox theology gained a great deal from the - principally Russian - neo-patristic and neo-Palamite revolution during the last century … but the problems bequeathed to Orthodox scholarship by the “Russian revolution” in theology are many… For one thing, it led to a certain narrowing of the spectrum of what many Eastern theologians are prepared to treat as either centrally or legitimately Orthodox, with the consequence that many legitimate aspects of the tradition that cannot be easily situated upon the canonical Losskian path from the patristic age to the Hesychastic synthesis of the 14th and subsequent centuries have suffered either neglect or denigration. But the most damaging consequence of Orthodoxy’s 20th-century pilgrimage ad fontes - ironically, I think - has been an increase in the intensity of Eastern theology’s anti-Western polemic, or at least in the confidence with which it is uttered. Nor is this only a problem for ecumenism: the anti-Western passion of Lossky and others has on occasion led to severe distortions of Eastern theology; and it has often made intelligent interpretations of Western Christian theology all but impossible for Orthodox thinkers. Neo-patristic Orthodox scholarship has usually gone hand in hand with some of the most excruciatingly inaccurate treatments of Western theologians one could imagine. …
Click to expand...
 
Great Stuff…Thanks for sharing…👍

Is there link to more?

Peace
James
 
Well, yes, but it’s likewise at least a bit fanciful to think that eliminating the most radical voices in either camp means the schism itself will be healed, as though the only issues to be dealt with are the flagrant distortions on either side. (I’m not sure whether this is the point Mr. Hart is making or not, as it’s hard to tell from just a few excerpts.) There is also the argument, put forth by Eastern theologians and I think essentially valid even if there weren’t these extremists to deal with, that we are ontologically different by this point.
 
dzheremi said:
Well, yes, but it’s likewise at least a bit fanciful to think that eliminating the most radical voices in either camp means the schism itself will be healed, as though the only issues to be dealt with are the flagrant distortions on either side. (I’m not sure whether this is the point Mr. Hart is making or not, as it’s hard to tell from just a few excerpts.) There is also the argument, put forth by Eastern theologians and I think essentially valid even if there weren’t these extremists to deal with, that we are ontologically different by this point.
Click to expand...
Even just from these excerpts it is clear that this is not the point that he is making. First, he is not just talking about the extremists, but about distortion and myth all levels, even as they crop up among mainstreamists (Dumitru Staniloae, Vladimir Lossky, or John Zizioulas, Erich Przywara or Hans Urs von Balthasar). Moreover, he does not say that if we overturn myth we will have healing, but that if we do not we cannot have anything but impasse.
until those claims are defeated - as well they should be, as they are without exception entirely fanciful - we cannot reasonably hope for anything but impasse
Click to expand...
.

Is it possible that even if those claims are defeated that we will remain at an impasse? Perhaps, but how could we predict? Until we discern truth from myth that needs to be defeated, we are really unable to talk in anything but a superficial way about ontological differences.
 
dzheremi said:
Well, yes, but it’s likewise at least a bit fanciful to think that eliminating the most radical voices in either camp means the schism itself will be healed, as though the only issues to be dealt with are the flagrant distortions on either side. (I’m not sure whether this is the point Mr. Hart is making or not, as it’s hard to tell from just a few excerpts.) There is also the argument, put forth by Eastern theologians and I think essentially valid even if there weren’t these extremists to deal with, that we are ontologically different by this point.
Click to expand...
Very true - But what I think it DOES do is to point out the very real need for good, clear and charitable and official dialogue between the EO and the RC that deals with actual, documented issues rather than allowing “popular opinion” further cloud the issues.

Whether Esst or West, we believe in the Church authority to teach. As such, when our respective communions come together in Brotherly Love to cut through all the “undergrowth” and uncover and rebuild mutual understanding, we will all be surprised at how little real and substantial difference there is.

Pray fro eventual re-unification

Peace
James
 
Hmm. You have an interesting perspective, James, but from what I’ve experienced and read it’s almost the opposite of that. It’s not as though Orthodox Christians do not believe in the teaching authority of the church, but it seems like more meaningful steps toward unity are taken at ‘unofficial’, local levels. My priest friend/mentor in the British Orthodox Church (under the Coptic Patriarchate) talks a lot about how he often has visitors from the EO celebrate at his liturgies (without communion), and that he in turn has many under his care who visit their churches. The reports back from either side are “yeah, they were different in certain ways, but we’re so SIMILAR!” On the other hand, the Orthodox I know who have attended Catholic masses (as many were to sent to Catholic schools as children) do come away with a more nuanced (and positive) view of the Catholic Church, but without that sense of similarity. This is how I understand our “ontological difference” (not in the more literal sense that Mr. Heart fears, that we may not even share being in common…hahaha).
 
dvdjs said:
Excerpts from an article entitled The Myth of Schism, by Orthodox, theologian David Bentley Hart caught my eye on another board. [snip] I haven’t read anything this frank in introspection from an Orthodox, theologian. A breath of fresh air. :
Click to expand...
Mr Hart wrote some powerful remarks

He wrote
“As regards my own communion, I must reluctantly report that there are some Eastern Christians who have become incapable of defining what it is to be Orthodox except in contradistinction to Roman Catholicism; … For such as these, there can never be any limit set to the number of grievances that need to be cited against Rome, nor any act of contrition on the part of Rome sufficient for absolution. There was something inherently strange in the spectacle of John Paul asking pardon for the 1204 sack of Constantinople and its sequel; but there is something inherently unseemly in the refusal of certain Eastern polemicists to allow the episode to sink back to the level of utter irrelevancy to which it belongs. (In any event, I eagerly await the day when the Patriarch of Constantinople, in a gesture of unqualified Christian contrition, makes public penance for the brutal mass slaughter of the metic Latin Christians of Byzantium - men, women and children - at the rise of Andronicus I Comnenus in 1182, and the sale of thousands of them into slavery to the Turks. Frankly, when all is said and done, the sack of 1204 was a rather mild recompense for that particular abomination, I would think).”

Just a few comments

JPII DID ask forgiveness for the sacking of Constantinople. wwrn.org/articles/14825/?&place=greece-cyp-malta and as Mr Hart comments, the slaughter of 50,000 Catholics DID happen in 1182 by the Orthodox crusades-encyclopedia.com/1182.html Where is the apology from the Orthodox for THAT?

As Mr Hart intimates, polemic Orthodox don’t talk about what happened in 1182, only what happened in 1202 which he notes as “unseemly” on their part. As Dr. Warren Carroll in the 2nd article notes: there maybe a connection between what happened in 1202 and a possible cause from what happened in 1182
 
steve_b said:
Mr Hart wrote some powerful remarks

He wrote
"As regards my own communion, I must reluctantly report that there are some Eastern Christians who have become incapable of defining what it is to be Orthodox except in contradistinction to Roman Catholicism; … For such as these, there can never be any limit set to the number of grievances that need to be cited against Rome, nor any act of contrition on the part of Rome sufficient for absolution. There was something inherently strange in the spectacle of John Paul asking pardon for the 1204 sack of Constantinople and its sequel; but there is something inherently unseemly in the refusal of certain Eastern polemicists to allow the episode to sink back to the level of utter irrelevancy to which it belongs. (In any event, I eagerly await the day when the Patriarch of Constantinople, in a gesture of unqualified Christian contrition, makes public penance for the brutal mass slaughter of the metic Latin Christians of Byzantium - men, women and children - at the rise of Andronicus I Comnenus in 1182, and the sale of thousands of them into slavery to the Turks. Frankly, when all is said and done, the sack of 1204 was a rather mild recompense for that particular abomination, I would think)."

Just a few comments

JPII DID ask forgiveness for the sacking of Constantinople. wwrn.org/articles/14825/?&place=greece-cyp-malta and as Mr Hart comments, the slaughter of 50,000 Catholics DID happen in 1182 by the Orthodox crusades-encyclopedia.com/1182.html Where is the apology from the Orthodox for THAT?

As Mr Hart intimates, polemic Orthodox don’t talk about what happened in 1182, only what happened in 1202 which he notes as “unseemly” on their part. As Dr. Warren Carroll in the 2nd article notes: there maybe a connection between what happened in 1202 and a possible cause from what happened in 1182
Click to expand...
Forgive without the apology. We need to start unity by looking at today and the future, not the past sins that put us in this mess in the first place. Lord, forgive us all.
 
coco2 said:
Forgive without the apology. We need to start unity by looking at today and the future, not the past sins that put us in this mess in the first place. Lord, forgive us all.
Click to expand...
One who won’t apologize generally has forgiveness issues also. JPII certainly didn’t have either problem. He bent over backwards to forgive and ask forgiveness.
 
dzheremi said:
Well, yes, but it’s likewise at least a bit fanciful to think that eliminating the most radical voices in either camp means the schism itself will be healed, as though the only issues to be dealt with are the flagrant distortions on either side. (I’m not sure whether this is the point Mr. Hart is making or not, as it’s hard to tell from just a few excerpts.) There is also the argument, put forth by Eastern theologians and I think essentially valid even if there weren’t these extremists to deal with, that we are ontologically different by this point.
Click to expand...
What does that mean, “ontologically different”? Have we become different sorts of beings? Who are the humans?
 
coco2 said:
Forgive without the apology. We need to start unity by looking at today and the future, not the past sins that put us in this mess in the first place. Lord, forgive us all.
Click to expand...
That would be great, but the current Russian Patriarch has said that there will be no unity between Catholic and Orthodox, and, for the Orthodox, he makes the rules. So, th…th…th…th…th…th…that’s all folks.
 
steve_b said:
Mr Hart wrote some powerful remarks

He wrote
"As regards my own communion, I must reluctantly report that there are some Eastern Christians who have become incapable of defining what it is to be Orthodox except in contradistinction to Roman Catholicism; … For such as these, there can never be any limit set to the number of grievances that need to be cited against Rome, nor any act of contrition on the part of Rome sufficient for absolution. There was something inherently strange in the spectacle of John Paul asking pardon for the 1204 sack of Constantinople and its sequel; but there is something inherently unseemly in the refusal of certain Eastern polemicists to allow the episode to sink back to the level of utter irrelevancy to which it belongs. (In any event, I eagerly await the day when the Patriarch of Constantinople, in a gesture of unqualified Christian contrition, makes public penance for the brutal mass slaughter of the metic Latin Christians of Byzantium - men, women and children - at the rise of Andronicus I Comnenus in 1182, and the sale of thousands of them into slavery to the Turks. Frankly, when all is said and done, the sack of 1204 was a rather mild recompense for that particular abomination, I would think)."

Just a few comments

JPII DID ask forgiveness for the sacking of Constantinople. wwrn.org/articles/14825/?&place=greece-cyp-malta and as Mr Hart comments, the slaughter of 50,000 Catholics DID happen in 1182 by the Orthodox crusades-encyclopedia.com/1182.html Where is the apology from the Orthodox for THAT?

As Mr Hart intimates, polemic Orthodox don’t talk about what happened in 1182, only what happened in 1202 which he notes as “unseemly” on their part. As Dr. Warren Carroll in the 2nd article notes: there maybe a connection between what happened in 1202 and a possible cause from what happened in 1182
Click to expand...
We had it coming, don’t you get it? It’s the tribalism characteristic of Orthodoxy that makes events like that, and people like us, less real to them.
 
coco2 said:
Forgive without the apology. We need to start unity by looking at today and the future, not the past sins that put us in this mess in the first place. Lord, forgive us all.
Click to expand...
We all need God’s forgiveness, and we should forgive without apology. But we need to understand that once we let the Orthodox know that we forgive them, they’ll laugh. What kind of forgiveness do they need from people who think the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son?
 
JackQ said:
We had it coming, don’t you get it? It’s the tribalism characteristic of Orthodoxy that makes events like that, and people like us, less real to them.
Click to expand...
JackQ, tribalism! Great description.

dvdjs, thanks for this!
 
Jim_Dandy said:
JackQ, tribalism! Great description.

dvdjs, thanks for this!
Click to expand...
Tribalism? :rolleyes: And Orthodox are accused of being uncharitable? The whole thread smacks of Latin triumphalism. “Ooh, an article by a fringe Orthodox and I’m going to label the whole of the Orthodox with it!” Bleh. If an Orthodox did something similar, he would be lambasted as a “polemicist.” Double standard?

In Christ,
Andrew
 
JackQ said:
What does that mean, “ontologically different”? Have we become different sorts of beings?
Click to expand...
Please read the good words of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew on this issue at this blog. I am not Eastern Orthodox, but I agree with the good Patriarch’s words here regarding the ontological differences between Catholics and Orthodox.
Who are the humans?
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:
 
Harpazo said:
Tribalism? :rolleyes: And Orthodox are accused of being uncharitable?..If an Orthodox did something similar, he would be lambasted as a “polemicist.” Double standard?
Click to expand...
You are correct. “Tribalism” is an unkind description. I agree that turning a humble admission by an Eastern Orthodox of the problematic attitudes within Eastern Orthodoxy as an occasion to heap criticism at Eastern Orthodoxy is both inconsistent and lacks Christian charity. The very fact that an Eastern Orthodox has the humility to admit the shortcomings of his own Church indicates that EO’xy cannot be generalized to have the attitude of “tribalism.”
The whole thread smacks of Latin triumphalism. “Ooh, an article by a fringe Orthodox and I’m going to label the whole of the Orthodox with it!” Bleh.
Click to expand...
I’m profoundly sorry to have to say this, but this response is worse than “tribalism.” It smacks, rather, of hypocrisy. It reflects the triumphalism that you yourself claim to correct. Why do you criticize the author? Is the author’s attitude of humility so foreign to Eastern Orthodoxy that you can so causally dismiss him as some “fringe Orthodox”? You seriously think EO’xy is oh so perfect? Take off the blinders, brother, and we can participate in the work of unity that our own Lord and Savior demands of us.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top