The Narcissism Of Small Ecclesial Differences

By Rod Dreher • February 2, 2013, 11:49 PM

Get a load of this: according to the Catholic bishop of Lausanne, Geneva, and Fribourg, Switzerland, in his diocese, members of these Christian churches are permitted to use Catholic churches and chapels: Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, and Reformed.

Guess who isn’t allowed to do so: member of the Society of St. Pius X, a traditionalist Catholic order whose excommunication was lifted a few years back.

I wrote to a traditionalist Catholic priest friend, asking him to explain how this could happen. He responded:

Ah. I explain with illustration.

Good Shepherd Binghamton, NY was an evangelical Episcopal Church which left ECUSA, joining an Anglican Continuing Church. The Diocese (Western New York) sued for the property, refused all offers of a settlement, won the property and… sold it to Mohammedans for a fraction of what the congregation had offered.

It is today an Islamic Cultural Center. I have seen the photos of the interior, pews and altar gone, prayer rugs on the floor.

Mrs Jefferts Schori (the Presiding Bishop) said bluntly in an interview that there was no way an ECUSA property would go to any other “Anglican” group — she explicitly said she’d rather see it turned into a tavern.

The professional Christian set owns the Church. It’s theirs; diss them and you get your slice taken away.

But note the lesson illustrated by Lausanne.Something can be a real priority of the Pope, personally, but be sabotaged by his subordinates.

The Wall Street Journal carried a reported commentary about the Binghamton debacle. The narcissism of small differences strikes again.

Posted in Christianity. Tagged Anglican, Catholic, Episcopalian, Lutheran, narcissism, Orthodox, Reformed.

47 Responses to The Narcissism Of Small Ecclesial Differences

EngineerScotty says:

February 3, 2013 at 1:30 am

Reminds me of this old joke:

I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said, “Stop! Don’t do it!” “Why shouldn’t I?” he said. I said, “Well, there’s so much to live for!” He said, “Like what?” I said, “Well, are you religious or atheist?” He said, “Religious.” I said, “Me too! Are your Christian or Buddhist?” He said, “Christian.” I said, “Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?” He said, “Protestant.” I said, Me too! Are your Episcopalian or Baptist? He said, “Baptist!” I said, “Wow! Me too! Are your Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord? He said, Baptist Church of God!” I said, “Me too! Are your Original Baptist Church of God or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?” He said, “Reformed Baptist Church of God!” I said, “Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915?” He said, “Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915!” I said, “Die, heretic scum!” and pushed him off.

And of course, numerous references to the Judean People’s Front and its rivals.

That said, is it possible that the good Bishop has real issues with St. Pius beyond simple differences in doctrine? After all, the group is frequently accused, not without grounds, of anti-Semitism, a particularly sore issue in Europe (for obvious reasons). Obviously, I don’t know the grounds for his objection, but this seems to be a different issue than treating schismatics more harshly than those from an entirely different religious tradition.
EngineerScotty says:

February 3, 2013 at 1:35 am

And I should note that referring to Muslims as “Mohammedans” (an archaic term for the faith, by which I assume the father meant no offense) would be like referring to Roman Catholics as “Maryians”–or “papists”. While the Prophet is revered in Islam, he is not worshiped, and Roman Catholics–who have been the target of various smears of this nature–surely ought to understand the difference.
M_Young says:

February 3, 2013 at 1:42 am

“The Diocese (Western New York) sued for the property, refused all offers of a settlement, won the property and… sold it to Mohammedans for a fraction of what the congregation had offered.”

Not surprising at all. The people who have marched through the institutions really do hate their predecessors. They enjoy the wealth built up by those predecessors, but they hate them all the same. Or perhaps they hate them because their predecessors were able to build up that wealth, but all they can do (at best) is to husband it, as their congregations and institutions dwindle.

I give them credit, though. They have marched through institutions. They have won (for now, at least). Gotta hand them that.

BTW this is why I don’t think the ‘defense of religious liberty’ position is tenable. Because the other side (whether for ‘gay’ rights, abortion rights, or whatever) are the righteous, in their eyes. They are the inheritors of the Julie Ward Howe school of morality. As in ‘trampling out the vineyards’. Anyone hold to traditional morality are those vineyards.
James C. says:

February 3, 2013 at 3:03 am

Of course it’s nonsense. But that bishop is standing against the tide. We young folk will be patient, and in 20 years his decision will seem a bizarre relic of a bizarre time.
MattSwartz says:

February 3, 2013 at 4:21 am

I don’t think the title fits with either example.

The rival Anglican factions in western NY have fundamentally incompatible ways of viewing this world and the next. If people are going to fight (and people willfight!), I am at least happy to see them doing it over something of eternal significance. The ECUSA bishop made a call: she determined that she had more common cause with the Muslims than with people who took her creeds at face value. That’s accurate, and in some sense, honorable.

The SSPX thing makes sense too; their very reason to exist lies in the assertion that Councils and Popes can err. A Reformed, Lutheran, or Orthodox pastor might agree, but at least while they’re asking to borrow the building, they’ll do their agreeing under their breath. Those guys aren’t posing an existential threat to the institution in the here and now like the SSPX are.

Anyone who won’t fight for doctrine doesn’t have any.
Wayne says:

February 3, 2013 at 4:26 am

The Society of Pius X is not merely traditionalist. here in europe there were a bunch of controversies around them, you might not have heard of it. tons of holocaust deniers and other fascists. their founder lefebvre glorified the vichy regime. their excommunication was renounced although they didn’t give in on anything. i do hope that the official church of my country still shuns them and so do roughly 99% of its adherents. that thing in new york has nothing to do with it.
Leroy Huizenga says:

February 3, 2013 at 8:05 am

The situation in Switzerland is hardly the stuff of the “narcissism of petty differences” (though I love the phrase). While the section of the letter quoted in translation at the link you provide is brief and doesn’t give the Bishop’s full thinking on the matter, my suspicion is that the motivation is clarity. While the Pope lifted the excommunications, that basically means they could receive pastoral care from a Catholic priest in good standing.

Which none of the SSPX clergy are. While their masses are valid but illicit, their confessions are invalid because they lack the faculties needed.. Traditionalist priests in full communion with Rome also tell me there’s a real problem with their marriages.

So imagine an SSPX group wishes to set up shop regularly in a regular Catholic parish or chapel. To congregants, it may look and feel Catholic (and the SSPX would argue it is). But in Rome’s eyes, the eyes that count for the Bishop, there’s a real risk of confusion: regular congregants may think SSPX sacraments are both valid and licit, when there are real problems. Less risk of that, I think the Bishop is thinking, with the Christian bodies he names, since everyone knows, or should know, these bodies don’t claim to be the representatives of authentic Roman Catholicism.

Beyond that, note that it’s not that everyone can use Catholic churches and chapels, but only certain Christian communions: “Catholic-Christian, Evangelical-Reformed, Lutheran, Orthodox, and Anglican.” I don’t about particular agreements reached with these bodies in Switzerland or Europe, but looking at the list, these are bodies that in some way would regard themselves as part of the church catholic and also play ecumenical ball — at least in a European context.

Just some thoughts, which could be wrong, but I’m inclined to read this more charitably than some.
David J. White says:

February 3, 2013 at 10:07 am

I think Matt and Leroy are right. If the diocese allows a Lutheran group to use a Catholic Church, no one is going to draw the conclusion that the diocese is endorsing the Lutherans, or saying that differences with the Lutherans have been smoothed away, or that Catholics can fulfill their Sunday obligation by going to Lutheran services held in a Catholic Church.

With the SSPX, a real risk of confusion on that score exists. I’m sympathetic in many ways to the SSPX, but I think the bishop made the right call. After all, the SSPX not only claims to be Catholic, but they claim to be the real Catholics. While it is currently the case that the faithful may attend their Masses and validly satisfy their Sunday obligation by doing so, other Sacraments — particularly Penance — are problematic, because their priests lack faculties from the local bishop. Many of the people who attend their Masses do so because they love the Latin Mass, and have no interest in the rest of the Society’s political agenda; I’ve known many people like that, and I was one for awhile. This is probably a big reason why Rome has decided not to make a big deal out of the fact that many people attend SSPX Masses. But the fact that the political agenda simply isn’t on the radar for many people who attend their Masses doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist and that it isn’t causing problems.

But note the lesson illustrated by Lausanne.Something can be a real priority of the Pope, personally, but be sabotaged by his subordinates.

I think your priest friend is wrong about this, Rod. The bishop of Lausanne is hardly “sabotaging” the pope’s efforts. Benedict would very much like to regularize the status of the SSPX within the Church, and the Vatican has been holding talks with them to that effect. (Unlike some other traditionalist groups, the SSPX are not sedevacantist — they recognize Benedict XVI as the legitimate pope.) But whatever Rome has proposed to the SSPX has never been enough; they always seem to want more. Essentially they want regularization (I won’t say reunion, because I don’t think it’s regarded as a formal schism — yet) completely on their terms. But it doesn’t work that way. After the Society found “problems” in the latest proposal from Rome, the Vatican announced that no further talks with them are scheduled. I think that they need to understand that, however much Benedict wants to regularize their situation and however many olive branches he is willing to extend to them, Rome’s patience in this matter is not infinite. There are consequences for their continued obstinacy, and this may be one of them. At some point, Rome is simply going to say that enough is enough, and that the Society has to decide whether it’s in, or Rome’s terms, or it’s out. And I think that they have no more than the remainder of Benedict’s pontificate (he’s 83) to decide. I doubt that the next pope will make reconciliation of the SSPX a priority.

Of course it’s nonsense. But that bishop is standing against the tide. We young folk will be patient, and in 20 years his decision will seem a bizarre relic of a bizarre time.

I don’t think you’re quite right about this, James. I’m a traditional Catholic, and I agree that in 20 years’ time the traditional Latin Mass will probably be much more readily available, at least in the West, including the diocese of Lausanne. But unless the SSPX accepts that it can’t dictate the terms of its reconciliation with Rome, its priests won’t be the ones celebrating those Masses; it will be an approved traditional society, such as the Fraternity of St. Peter or the Institute of Christ the King, or the diocese itself.
Glaivester says:

February 3, 2013 at 10:17 am

MattSwartz, don’t be coy. Let’s spell it out.

Mrs Jefferts Schori is not a Christian. She, like a large segment of official Anglicanism, is an apostate pagan and therefore hates the idea of anything resembling Christianity at her Church, which is why she preferred letting the Muslims have it.
David J. White says:

February 3, 2013 at 10:24 am

would be like referring to Roman Catholics as “Maryians”–or “papists”.

Actually, a lot of us like to refer to ourselves as “papists”, or — my favorite — “mackerel-snappers”. But perhaps this is on a par with homosexuals choosing to call themselves “queer”, or black people choosing to call one another “n-”.
Chris says:

February 3, 2013 at 10:42 am

We Orthodox exemplify this in our debates about the old versus new calendar, bearded versus shaven clergy, slavic versus Greek rubrics, toll houses etc ….

[Note from Rod: You are absolutely right. I remember too in reading about the history of the Bolsheviks and the postrevolutionary Left, there was often more hatred among the communists for deviants in their own ranks than there was for capitalists. -- RD]
SDS says:

February 3, 2013 at 11:03 am

…And here I thought the Sunni/Shia schism was infantile…..
Consequences1 says:

February 3, 2013 at 12:11 pm

It’s not the size of the differences, it’s the history, the still raw wounds of divorce.
Matthew says:

February 3, 2013 at 12:34 pm

Your priest doesn’t know what what the hell he is talking about. I know Bishop Morerod. He is a good churchman and an ardent Thomist. He explained his reasoning to a friend of mine. He was merely promulgating the norms of the Swiss Episcopal conference from 2011, before he was even a bishop. He waited more than a year longer than his fellow French-speaking Swiss bishops to implement it in hopes that the talks with the SSPX would move forward and they could be added. But Fellay blew it when he preached that the new Mass was dangerous and Jews were “enemies of the Church”. Do you think he is going to risk allowing that preached in one of his parishes?
norman ravitch says:

February 3, 2013 at 1:02 pm

If Dreher really believed in the narcissism of small differences he would not have left the Roman church for the Orthodox church.
James C. says:

February 3, 2013 at 1:30 pm

Matthew, I daresay there is plenty of nonsense getting preached in His Excellency’s parishes—as they have for decades with impunity, while those parishes dwindle and the diocese implodes.

I’m not an SSPX regular, but I must be honest. Frankly, if this “doctrinal preamble” being forced on the SSPX requires affirmations that are not necessary for unity with the Holy See, then the SSPX would be morally justified in following their conscience and refusing to sign something they don’t believe. If that is the case, I will be sad, but the silver lining is that the SSPX will continue to be a useful thorn in Rome’s side, pressuring them to clean out the Augean stables.

The irony in all this is that the SSPX only wishes for Rome to govern the Church with vigor and in accord with her traditions. That has been lacking, with devastating effects.

John Paul II may have been a rock star, but he also appointed plenty of Roger Mahonys. Clean up the mess! So for the time being, if they must remain irregular and a thorn in Rome’s side, so be it. It won’t last.
sdb says:

February 3, 2013 at 2:03 pm

I vaguely remember reading a interview with Jefferts Schori shortly after she became the head-honcho of the ECUSA…two things struck me. The first was that she had a PhD in science (marine biology maybe?). I thought that was pretty cool. The second was a comment she made about dealing with the ongoing tension between the conservative and liberal wings of the ECUSA. She said something along the lines of that she knew this would be a challenge, but she could be very convincing when she got the opportunity to sit down with someone and talk to them. I remember thinking at that time that she was awfully full of herself to believe that she could solve the tension between the liberals and conservatives by winning over dissidents with her remarkable powers of persuasion.

Judging by the way she has responded to the schism by the conservative dioceses within her denomination, it seems that she has failed. The utter lack of compassion for those who have deep existential disagreements about the direction she and other liberals are taking their church reveals a remarkable lack of humility or charity. I understand why the denomination may not want to give away her property to breakaway churches, but to refuse to even sell the property at fair market value strikes me as utter spite…something that has no place in the life of a Christian. I’m just an outsider, but her response leaves me the impression that she is an astonishingly petty and hateful person…a sad testimony.

[Note from Rod: She is an incarnation of Neuhaus's Law. -- RD]
Matthew says:

February 3, 2013 at 2:12 pm

Matthew, I daresay there is plenty of nonsense getting preached in His Excellency’s parishes—as they have for decades with impunity, while those parishes dwindle and the diocese implodes.”

Yes, a lot of crazy nonsense probably has been/is being preached in his diocese. I am sure he is aware of that. Loose cannons are not something bishops have only been dealing with in the decades following Vatican II. Wise bishops know they cannot eradicate all such nonsense. And in this case, some aging lefty preaching about women’s ordination is not going to cause as much trouble as a prominent SSPX bishop preaching an anti-semetic homily. The latter will make headlines around the world and jeopardize the Church’s relationship with the Jewish world.
MClark says:

February 3, 2013 at 2:21 pm

You know, there used to be two different kinds of people in the world . You were either one or the other, but never both.

What with JJ Abrams being tapped to helm the new Star Wars movie, sci fi fans can look forward to a new era of ecumenical cooperation. Too bad other people still have issues.
Hector_St_Clare says:

February 3, 2013 at 2:49 pm

Re: The rival Anglican factions in western NY have fundamentally incompatible ways of viewing this world and the next

Yeah, I really don’t think they do. It would be fair to say that “Bishop” Katherine Schori has a fundamentally incompatible way of viewing this world and the next than the bishops of the Continuing Anglican churches. (Judging from her public pronouncements, it’s questionable whether she even believes in a literal heaven, hell, etc.) But the dirty little secret is that I doubt Schori speaks for that many of her congregants. At the level of individual parish priests, there are going to be a lot of Episcopal priests and Continuing Anglican priests who believe more or less the same things. And at the level of the laypeople, I would bet that’s even more true. I’ve worshiped in continuing Anglican churches before, and felt perfectly comfortable; they certainly didn’t spend all their time ragging on the Episcopal church, and I’ve been in Episcopal churches where they talk favourably about the continuing Anglican churches as well.

This isn’t just true in Anglicanism, it’s true of other churches (Lutherans, Methodists, etc.) divided between ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ factions as well. Surveys show, for example, that the average layperson in the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (=’liberal’ Lutherans) and the average layperson in the Missouri Synod (=’conservative Lutherans’) actually don’t differ as much as you might think on the hot-button culture war issues. It’s really the *leadership* that fierceley disagrees and spends a lot of their time yelling at the other side. The average ELCA believer is more conservative than the leaders of their church, and the average LCMS believer is more liberal. I would imagine the same is true of United Methodists vs. Wesleyans, conservative vs. liberal Presbyterians, etc. I don’t think most Episcopalian believers, or most of the rank-and-file in the ACNA, ACC, or any of these other breakaway groups care that much about the Anglican schisms. I’d imagine that most of them are more interested in trying to love God, love their neighbor, and get through their day.

It’s also worth bearing in mind that relatively orthodox Episcopalians themselves disagree on quite a bit regarding this world and the next (some believe in purgatory, for example, while others don’t). Which is to say, basically, that Katherine Schori is a power-mad jezebel that refuses to tolerate any Anglican body that doesn’t recognize her authority. Don’t attribute to genuine differences of theology or morals, what could be better attributed to pride, territorialism, and petty power games.

Re: If Dreher really believed in the narcissism of small differences he would not have left the Roman church for the Orthodox church.

No, man. I’m neither a Catholic nor an Eastern Orthodox, but even I can tell you that the differences between the two churches aren’t ‘small’. They differ on very very fundamental issues. Arguably the whole basis of their moral theology is different- I’ve been told (including by a regular commenter on this blog) and have read, that the Orthodox take a much more medicinal rather than legalistic approach to sin, they have the concept of ‘economia’ which is lacking in the West, and they never really bought into Augustinian ideas about original sin or Scholastic ideas about teleology.

Re: I remember too in reading about the history of the Bolsheviks and the postrevolutionary Left, there was often more hatred among the communists for deviants in their own ranks than there was for capitalists

That’s true too- the Bolsheviks *hated* Trotskyists, and vice versa. Heretics are always hated more than simple unbelievers.
William Burns says:

February 3, 2013 at 4:10 pm

MClark,

You refer to the apostate JJ Abrams, whose name shall be forever cursed? That JJ Abrams?
norman ravitch says:

February 3, 2013 at 4:47 pm

To: Hector St.Clair,

You are wrong. Catholics and Orthodox differ only on the authority of the Pope. The dispute over the filioque means nothing to real people. Since the Roman church abandoned Augustinianism in the 17-18th century there is is no theological difference with Orthodox. All the ANTAGONISMS ARE POLITICAL; NONE ARE RELIGIOUS.

[Note from Rod: You're wrong about this. I wish you weren't, but you are. More than that, STOP SHOUTING. -- RD]
David J. White says:

February 3, 2013 at 5:27 pm

Norman,

One thing Rod has said a number of times, though he didn’t repeat it here, is that the Catholic-Orthodox divide looks a lot wider from the Orthodox side than from the Catholic side. Other Orthodox friends of mine have confirmed this. And, of course, Rod would be in a position to know.
Jim Atherton says:

February 3, 2013 at 5:56 pm

Would you describe these existing differences that Norman allegedly overlooks as small or large.

[Note from Rod: Deceptively small. They don't look like that big a deal -- the "filioque" controversy strikes most laymen as angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin stuff. But I read something explaining from an Orthodox point of view why that is theologically significant -- that is, why the procession of the Father is truly consequential from a theological point of view. More to the point, the filioque dispute is about church authority, particularly papal authority. I don't see how the Roman Catholic view and the Orthodox view can be reconciled, to say nothing about other theological developments since the great schism, e.g., the development of doctrine in the West to include defining things like the Immaculate Conception, papal infallibility, and so forth. I agree that at the everyday parish level, this stuff almost never comes up. But it's still really important to both sides. I'm thrilled to see both churches cooperating more and coming closer together, but I don't think there will be reunion until the Second Coming. The differences really are irreconcilable. Alas for us all. -- RD]
JonF says:

February 3, 2013 at 6:05 pm

Norman,
I will concede that the filioque dispute has been put to bed, if not openly and explicitly. (However Rome still insists on having it in the Creed, and the Orthodox will never say the Creed that way)
However theological differences remain on the matter of Original Sin (which is why we regard the dogma of the Immaculate Conception as unintelligible) and Purgatory.
Additionally, there are practical differences, some of which are perhaps trivial now (though once loomed large) such as Communion practices and the dating of Pascha; and others which now loom large: Orthodox acceptance of remarriage after divorce and contraception.
Reunion is not at all hovering on the horizon.
David J. White says:

February 3, 2013 at 6:06 pm

If that is the case, I will be sad, but the silver lining is that the SSPX will continue to be a useful thorn in Rome’s side, pressuring them to clean out the Augean stables.

I think this is wishful thinking on the part of the SSPX, James. If Rome loses patience and simply declares the SSPX to be in schism and moves on, esp. under a different pope, I don’t think that the Society will be perceived as a “thorn in Rome’s side” any more than the Old Catholics are.
Richard Barrett says:

February 3, 2013 at 6:45 pm

Speaking as an Orthodox Christian, I’ll say that my experience has generally been that the continuum of Orthodox perspectives generally talks about the differences in a way that strikes Catholics as over-amplifying small points in a disingenuous fashion; the continuum of Catholic perspectives, on the other hand, tends to talk about the differences in a way that strikes Orthodox as marginalizing significant issues of substance in an equally disingenuous fashion.

This is in and of itself a problem, when you can’t even agree on what the problems are or how big of a deal they actually need to be.
Hector_St_Clare says:

February 3, 2013 at 7:35 pm

Re: Orthodox acceptance of remarriage after divorce and contraception.

I’ve been told that the attitudes towards remarriage and contraception, as well as the controversy over original sin, are both symptomatic of a broader difference, which is the juridical vs. the medicinal approach to sin and virtue.

Again, I’m not Orthodox, so any Orthodox people here can flesh this out better than I can.
David J. White says:

February 3, 2013 at 7:40 pm

An Orthodox friend of mine (a convert who was raised Episcopalian) has said that he can accept that, given the Catholic understanding of papal authority, Catholic are justified in doing some of the things we do that are grounded in papal authority, e.g. the current Catholic dating of Easter, the filioque, etc. As an Orthodox Christian he doesn’t accept the Catholic interpretation of these things, but he says that he can acknowledge that Catholics are basing their position on what they accept as a legitimate authority.

What he can’t understand, he says, is the fact that most Protestants continue to follow the Western (Catholic) tradition in some of these matters (e.g., filioque, dating of Easter) while at the same time rejecting the papal authority on which the Western practice is based. On what authority, therefore, he asks, do Protestants continue to follow Catholic practice in these areas?
Fr. Frank says:

February 3, 2013 at 8:25 pm

I agree with both Rod and Richard. Barring a miracle reunion will not occur before the age to come. Western Catholics who minimize the differences either do not understand them, or they dishonor the consciences of eastern and western saints who endured great hardships, and even martyrdom in order to remain faithful to the Tradition as they received it. While I mourn that fact, I believe a communion that is admittedly partial, but utterly real, can be achieved when individual Orthodox and Catholic Christians are content simply to be one another’s friends with no hint of ulterior motives. It is difficult even for brothers who are separated to fight with one another if their first concern is to bear one another’s burdens, and thus fulfill the law of Christ.

There is also this point: Certainly in the average congregation of devout Catholics, many if not most are not even aware of the existence of subtle theological distinctions. Many are functional Nestorians, or Monophysites, or even Arians and don’t even know it. Virtually all are Pelagians to one degree or another. And yet, they love Jesus. They can’t explain Him, but they love Him.

Perhaps I’m just worn out with apostolic bitchiness posing as zeal in my own household of faith. I believe all that the Holy Catholic Church declares to be revealed by God; but I will not fight about the Faith with other Apostolic Christians (or unApostolic ones either, for that matter). Instead, I’d rather comfort one another telling “the old, old story of Jesus and His love.”

Through the prayers of the holy Theotokos, save us, O Christ our God.

[Note from Rod: Well said, Father Frank. Very well said. I agree with you wholeheartedly about not fighting about the Faith, and I thank you for putting this so beautifully. -- RD]
Liam S says:

February 3, 2013 at 8:28 pm

‘What he can’t understand, he says, is the fact that most Protestants continue to follow the Western (Catholic) tradition in some of these matters (e.g., filioque, dating of Easter) while at the same time rejecting the papal authority on which the Western practice is based. On what authority, therefore, he asks, do Protestants continue to follow Catholic practice in these areas?’

I think those questions are easy enough to answer. The use of the filioque clause does not rest on papal authority, but on long-standing tradition in the West, dating back to the Third Synod of Toledo in the sixth century. For many Western Christians, the interpolated form of the Creed is the way they and their ancestors have professed the Christian faith since they stopped worshiping Thor. It is the creed professed by their saints. They’re hardly going to change it unless they are convinced that the doctrine that they believe it to signify is wrong.

As for the dating of Easter, the real question boils down to the use of the Gregorian calendar. The Protestants initially resisted the Gregorian reform, but they accepted it for one simple reason: it is more accurate. The Orthodox bishops generally recognize this. The only reason they haven’t switched (at all in the case of the Russians, for Easter in the case of the Greeks) is to avoid scandalizing the faithful.
Fr. Frank says:

February 3, 2013 at 8:52 pm

Re: Why do Protestants continue to follow Western Catholic traditions?

I suppose because they came out of the Western Catholic Tradition, and were chiefly concerned with matters of soteriology.

A non-canonical Orthodox friend of mine who has a real gift for turning a phrase put it thus: “Protestants do what they do because they are merely toadstools atop the rotting stump of Rome.” There’s probably some truth in that, but I still giggled when he said it!
Hector_St_Clare says:

February 3, 2013 at 9:07 pm

Re: On what authority, therefore, he asks, do Protestants continue to follow Catholic practice in these areas?

Actually, Aquinas said you didn’t need papal authority to demonstrate the validity of the Filioque, and that it was demonstrable by pure reason alone. I’ve seen a Catholic blogger make the argument, and it seemed convincing to me.

(The ‘reasoned’ argument for the Filioque is, if I understand it correctly, that if the Spirit did not proceed from both the Father and the Son, then there would be no way to distinguish the Son from the Spirit. They share the same essential properties, according to the Athanasian Creed, and they must be distinguishable *in principle*, meaning that the distinction must be irrespective of any accidental properties. If we leave out essential and accidental properties, then the only way to distinguish the persons is by relationships of origin. Which is to say that since the Son proceeds from the Father, the Spirit must have some other more complicated mode of procession in order for them to be distinguishable).
Connie says:

February 3, 2013 at 9:33 pm

refused all offers of a settlement, won the property and… sold it to Mohammedans for a fraction of what the congregation had offered.

Is there any independent corroboration of this statement?
David J. White says:

February 3, 2013 at 11:14 pm

Hector,

Interesting, thanks! Actually, my Orthodox friend is more perplexed/bemused at the fact that Protestants continue to follow the Catholic dating of Easter (rather than the Orthodox one), than over the filioque. Liam, I appreciate your comments on this. I figured it had something to do with the change to the Gregorian calendar but I’ve never been sure, since the same Orthodox friend has told me that the East and the West use a slightly different formula to calculate the date.

The only reason they haven’t switched (at all in the case of the Russians, for Easter in the case of the Greeks) is to avoid scandalizing the faithful.

Interesting. The same Orthodox friend has family in a region of the Near East (I won’t be more specific) where there are significant Catholic and Orthodox minorities, and he says that the differing Catholic and Orthodox dates for Easter tend to scandalize the local majority Muslim population: apparently some Muslims in the region regard it as a sign of Christianity’s falsehood that Christians can’t agree on the date for Easter.

Although I’m Catholic, Fr. Frank, I had to chuckle at your friend’s analogy.

Western Catholics who minimize the differences either do not understand them, or they dishonor the consciences of eastern and western saints who endured great hardships, and even martyrdom in order to remain faithful to the Tradition as they received it.

I think that for most Catholics, it’s simple lack of understanding, or even simply not giving the matter any thought at all. I learned a long time ago not to attribute to malice what can better be explained by ignorance.

My friend has commented that one of the sad results of the division between us is that we no longer know one another’s stories. Both Catholics and Orthodox know about many of the saints from before the schism whom we venerate in common, but we don’t know a great deal about each other’s saints, and their stories, for the last thousand years. Given that for the first time in a millennium we are actually talking to one another, instead of condemning, anathematizing, or simply ignoring one another, perhaps one step we can take toward mutual understanding, at least, is simply to tell one another the stories of our saints.
Fr. Frank says:

February 3, 2013 at 11:55 pm

Re: telling one another the stories of our saints.

I agree, David. As a Catholic, I’ve come to love several Orthodox saints. Three saints whose intercession I regularly request are St. John of Kronstadt, St. Seraphim of Sarov, and the Fool for Christ, St. Maximos the Hut-Burner. St. Max’s acts make for great reading!
Erin Manning says:

February 4, 2013 at 12:31 am

Father Frank, I’ve heard the charge before that Catholics today are Pelagians to some degree or other even from my fellow Catholics, but I really don’t see it (aside from the lamentable custom of foot-dragging on the part of parish officials to get around to baptizing infants: requiring parents to take classes etc. after the baby is born and delaying the baptism by as much as six months is just unacceptable, and I hope some of our newer bishops will sit up and pay attention to that problem). Unless I’m missing something, Pelagius taught that all of us start out like Adam and then fall just as he did because of his “bad example” (a very heterodox idea regarding original sin from the Catholic perspective), and that we’re completely responsible for all of our sins and all of their earthly and eternal consequences because we are strong enough on our own to resist them. If anything, I see the opposite attitude from some of the Catholics I know, a tendency to minimize sin and view Confession rather lightly. Certainly in my generation we were taught with an emphasis on God’s forgiving mercy and a corresponding lack of emphasis on the harm done to our own souls by our sins, but I see signs that catechesis in those areas is finally starting to improve.

As for the Nestorian/Monophysite thing, I think that most of the Catholics I know could articulate (however inadequately) that Jesus is one Divine Person with two natures, divine and human. Whether they would know to call this the hypostatic union or be aware of the ancient heresies and theological debates surrounding this teaching I don’t know, but I can tell you that the quasi-Arian beliefs I once encountered (mostly in Catholic diocesan schools, alas) have fallen out of favor for all but the “Nuns on the Bus” types who think that they need to progress “on beyond Jesus” to a kaleidoscope of pantheist heresy in order to keep that whole religious vocation thing interesting; fortunately, the type of Catholic who adheres firmly to those beliefs is getting older by the minute, and in any event has gone far enough off the deep end that no one outside of the New York Times’ offices takes them seriously.

JonF, I have to agree with you. When the Fort Worth Episcopal Diocese broke away from the national church, some members of the local Episcopal churches started investigating Catholicism and Orthodoxy. I spoke to a priest I know about the likelihood that we would be seeing a large number of new converts, and he said that while he was always hopeful and willing to reach out, he expected that the majority of the ones who actually ended up leaving the Episcopal church would choose Orthodoxy. I was a bit surprised thinking that Orthodox liturgy would be so much more unfamiliar to them, but he explained that there would be many people on second or third marriages or used to thinking of contraception as a morally sound choice for married people (though most were more conservative than the national Episcopal church about sex among the unmarried); for people who fit this description, Catholicism would be unacceptable on those two grounds alone–especially the marriage one, because they might have to submit their former marriages to a tribunal to determine whether or not they were even free to marry in the Church. In the absence of being absolutely convinced that the Catholic Church is the Church Christ intended to found as the ordinary means of salvation for all humanity, few people would put themselves through so great a trial.
Fr. Frank says:

February 4, 2013 at 12:33 am

Hector, that’s an interesting argument for the Filioque. But as a Catholic I have some reservations about it. Maybe I’m just not understanding what was said.

The first principle of differentiation between the Son and the Spirit is that the Son does not, in fact, proceed from the Father. He is eternally begotten, which is entirely different from procession.

Second, I don’t know any Catholics who maintain the belief that both Father and Son are independent “sources” of the Spirit’s existence. The Father alone is the Source or Eternal Fount of Godhead. Most Catholic theologians, I believe, would be more comfortable understanding the Filioque to say that the Spirit proceeds from the Father *through* the Son.

I think there may also be a third logical problem with the idea of double procession, which the Romanian Orthodox theologian Staniloae raises — and I must agree with him. If the Spirit proceeds from both Father and Son as from independent Sources, why could not yet a fourth hypostasis proceed from the Son and Spirit? And yet a fifth hypostasis from the Spirit and the fourth hypostasis? Double procession in the above sense would not necessisarily end with the Holy Trinity, but with a potentially infinite procession of unknown hypostases.

I think those are pretty interesting points. Just thought I’d pass them on.
JonF says:

February 4, 2013 at 5:47 am

Hector,

You are basically correct in regards to divorce among the Orthodox especially. Orthodox moral thinking includes economia, which makes allowance for human frailty and for the reality of living in an imperfect world. “Better to marry than burn [with lust]” as Paul said.
In regards to the filioque the Creed did not contain the phrase originally– it was introduced without much thought and certainly without permission from the larger Church by some Spanish bishops. We really ought think twice before trying to improve willy-nilly on the work on councils, and there is Scriptural support for the Orthodox position too (I don’t have time to look it up right now) There is a compromise position which I believe theologians on both sides accept, that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father alone, but proceeds temporally through the Son (i.e., Christ sends the Spirit to us, which is as he promised in Scripture). In terms of reciting the Creed however I think it is best to stick with what the Councils originally decreed.
John Beeler says:

February 4, 2013 at 8:56 am

Of course as a trad (in the official church but not a spokesman) I see the bitter irony that well could be due to Modernists in the official church. That said: born non-Catholics justly get the benefit of the doubt; the SSPX hasn’t been re-regularized (yet; yes, it was founded in the official church). So this predicament is exactly because the SSPX are Catholics being censured. The non-Catholics go scot-free. And yes, sharing churches looks like indifferentism. And a kind of ecumenism 40-50 years out of date, from when many Catholics and mainliners thought union was about to happen.

Orthodoxy and Catholicism are on parallel tracks; two one-true-church claims. (Catholicism should dump the Vatican II liturgical changes and learn from Orthodoxy’s folk traditionalism.) Union means one side would have to give in. The much larger Catholic Church won’t; at most from the Orthodox you’d get another split/more Greek Catholics and a smaller Orthodox Church. Forget the mainliners: fallible, fungible church (they can vote themselves Unitarian, out of Christianity) that doesn’t really want to come back. (Their excuse for leaving Catholicism was they claimed the Pope claimed too much power; now they claim more power than the Pope, by ordaining women and being homosexualist… their version of a one-true-church claim?) We’ve gone as far as we can with ecumenism: the sides pretty much know what the others really teach and are no longer trying to kill each other.

The Episcopalians have the right to govern themselves, including defending and selling their property, so they had the legal right to do what they did in Binghamton, selling a church to Muslims instead to former members. But they were jerks there.
John Beeler says:

February 4, 2013 at 9:03 am

The Episcopalians have the right to govern themselves, including defending and selling their property, so they had the legal right to do what they did in Binghamton, selling a church to Muslims instead to former members.

Instead of to former members.
sdb says:

February 4, 2013 at 9:14 am

“I suppose because they came out of the Western Catholic Tradition, and were chiefly concerned with matters of soteriology.”

I’m not sure that is right. Of course this is what gets the most press, but liberty of conscience and legitimacy of authority were pretty big deals too. The reformers didn’t believe that every Pope and Council was always wrong about everything (though given the harshness of some of the polemics, one might be forgiven for thinking so). Rather they did not believe that a Pope or Council had the authority to bind the conscience of believers on issues not clearly deducible from scripture (secular authorities were not so limited of course).

Something like the correct date for Easter or Christmas was simply a non-issue for the Reformers. Its not a matter of faith or doctrine. While some wanted to abolish observance of these holidays altogether (namely the Puritans), by and large, the reformers just didn’t believe that the Pope or any Council had the authority to require believers to observe various feasts, fasts, or holy days… They would point to passages in Paul’s epistles to the Colossians, Corinthians, and Romans for support.

The fact that we happen to celebrate Easter and Christmas at the same time as the RCC is because we share a common history and culture. It would not be shocking to learn that an evangelical church in Russia followed the Orthodox calendar for Easter and Christmas. Other than getting Christmas cards confused, it would be no scandal at all.
Hector says:

February 4, 2013 at 9:39 am

Fr. Frank,

Thanks for your response. just to clarify, I don’t really have strong opinions about the Filioque, and I’m certainly not trying to get the Orthodox to change the way they say it. It’s more important to know that the three persons are different and distinct than to know exactly how they relate to each other.

I can’t find the thread where the Catholic guy was arguing with his Orthodox interlocutors, but they were making the same argument you make, that ‘the Son is begotten, the Spirit proceeds’. the Catholic responded that ‘begotten’ and ‘proceeds’ don’t mean anything meaningfully different, and it’s just a poetic way of conveying that the Spirit has two sources and the Son has only one. the Orthodox folks in the discussion then responded ‘we don’t know exactly his ‘begotten’ is different from ‘proceeds’, but John of Damascus said they were somehow different even if we couldn’t know how.’
Siarlys Jenkins says:

February 4, 2013 at 12:25 pm

The differences really are irreconcilable. Alas for us all.

But if the differences had been reconciled, say, prior to the priestly pedophilia scandal, where would you have found a new spiritual home? The differences are what keep a variety of options open to faithful individual who find it necessary to move on. I’m not sure whether God cares about the differences at all.

What he can’t understand, he says, is the fact that most Protestants continue to follow the Western (Catholic) tradition in some of these matters (e.g., filioque, dating of Easter) … On what authority, therefore, he asks, do Protestants continue to follow Catholic practice in these areas?

It hasn’t been an issue in Protestant circles within my memory, but I would guess that the dates set by some Bishop of Rome are as good as any. The Reformation obviously was not a mass return to Orthodoxy, so what the Pope said mattered no more in the negative than in the positive. People were used to these dates, and God had offered no audible objections.

I personally would be happy to drop “and from the son,” but its not something I’m going to take up time advocating. The argument that the spirit must proceed differently from the son in order for the two to be distinguished from each other is tautalogical, and violates Occam’s razor. If you have to go through complex rational distortions to define a difference, perhaps there really isn’t any. We’re talking about a transcendent Deity after all. What do we really know? Why do we pretend to be competent to figure out such trivial details?

Many are functional Nestorians, or Monophysites, or even Arians and don’t even know it. Virtually all are Pelagians to one degree or another. And yet, they love Jesus. They can’t explain Him, but they love Him.

Yes, I expect that’s true of most churches, except perhaps the newest, rawest, breakaway from some previous line of thought. That’s why uniformity under a hierarchy is so ludicrous. 15th century Germans wouldn’t have been motivated to actually leave the Roman church if the church hadn’t insisted on sorting out unconscious Pelagians, Arians, Nestorians, and Monophysites, making them uncomfortably aware they were divergent, thereby making it easy to diverge. But we all love Jesus. That should have been sufficient.

I definitely have Pelagian leaning, and not only because of my Welsh blood. Interestingly, I have found some Mormons who take time to speak well of Pelagius.
Fr. Frank says:

February 4, 2013 at 1:48 pm

Erin, I think perhaps we are comparing personal and anecdotal accounts and experiences. I currently pastor two parishes totaling around 1700 families. I know that, generally speaking, if I ask the question “Who is Jesus?” the answers I get will be far more uniform and articulate than if I ask the question “*What* is Jesus?” To the first question the answer will almost always be, “He is the Son of God, and the Savior of the world.” It’s with the second question that things get fuzzy. Like you, I attribute this to decades of very poor catechetical formation. For example, it is not unusual to hear a person explain Jesus’ apparent lack of knowledge about certain things by saying, “That was the human part of Him talking.” Neither is it particularly unusual to hear the word “God” used exclusively for the First Person of the Trinity; i.e., “God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit.” This is what I meant when I said, “They love Him, but they can’t explain Him.” I firmly believe, however, that our Lord supplies what is lacking in any heart that is turned toward Him. After all, I really can’t explain Him either. In any case, I’m sure neither of us believe in a neo-gnostic notion of salvation through information, anyway. Still, this in no way excuses the poor catechesis of the last half century, nor mitigates the urgency of strong, orthodox formation for our people.

The charge of Pelagianism has primarily to do with what I call the Church-As-Conveyor-Belt-o’-Grace mindset. A huge part of my preaching and teaching focuses on the fact that salvation depends on far more than “making all your sacraments” and “being a good person.” It is about the daily pursuit of friendship with Christ, or conversion of life. This bond with Christ, effected by the Holy Spirit, leads here and in eternity to our becoming through grace what He is by nature — sons and daughters of God. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I do believe the notion that we can save ourselves by keeping all the rules and jumping through all the hoops with no reference to the necessity of grace, conversion of life, or friendship with Christ is Pelagian. Where I live and minister this is quite common but, of course, not universal.

Sherry Weddell’s excellent book, Forming Intentional Disciples is essential reading on this subject, I believe.
Erin Manning says:

February 4, 2013 at 9:19 pm

I was thinking of Sherry Weddell, Father Frank! I haven’t read her book as yet, but have read some of her online writings on the topic.

I guess my more specific question is: why Pelagian or semi-Pelagian as opposed to merely uninformed or downright ignorant? I appreciate your explanation re: the conveyor belt o’ Grace (great image) but I think that most people who think this way are like the peasant woman in one of Dostoyevsky’s stories, who was polite to God, of course, in her prayers, but when she *really* needed something she didn’t waste time, but went straight to St. Nicholas. We could call her a closet pantheist if we like, but I think “uneducated” fits the bill just as well.

I’ve lived in many states and have attended many Catholic churches, but I don’t meet many “rule-follower” Catholics who think that following the rules and getting their “sacrament” card punched will save them (with the exception of some elderly Catholics who appear to have been taught that even before Vatican II). Honestly, my experience has been of people who think that because Christ is their good buddy He won’t particularly mind that little grave-sin habit they’ve picked up, because He understands and loves them just as they are. They would agree that having a personal relationship with Christ is the most important thing, but they think of Him as primarily there to affirm them in their okayness, and to remind them to be sad when they fail to recycle or when they say an unkind word to someone. I’m not certain we can call that Pelagian, though it’s not particularly orthodox Catholicism, either.

In any case, we’re in complete agreement regarding the poor catechesis of the last fifty years and the need to undo the damage and start over (and you have my prayers for your success in those ventures with your parishes!).
Fr. Frank says:

February 5, 2013 at 7:59 am

I really think we’re in substantial agreement. Uninformed Catholic works as well as Pelagian. I was attempting to put a name to that strain of Catholicism that seems unaware that grace is necessary when a form of mechanized rule-keeping appears to work just as well. Perhaps this really is a regional or cultural difference. I also emphatically agree with you on what I refer to as “Jesus Is My Boyfriend” Catholicism. (He’s just crazy about me, I’m tellin’ ya! Plus, He gives me cool stuff!) I suspect we imported it into the Church about the same time we imported non-Catholic Praise and Worship songs. In some respects P & W music has been a Trojan Horse for Moralistic Therapeutic Deism.