Lifting The Bans
Following John Zmirak’s advice that non-Catholics should not say anything about Pope Benedict’s lifting of bans on four SSPX bishops, I am not going to offer any comments about the decision itself. It is the Catholic Church’s business and a matter of internal discipline and order. It is noteworthy that outsiders in the media seem to be horrified by schism when it is a matter of theologically conservative Christians resisting the introduction of modern fads and deviations from tradition, but regard the healing of schism even more horrifying if it means bringing traditionalists back into the fold.
Ross’ take on the subject is worth reading. What I will say relates to the response to this decision. I agree with Ross that media treatment of such a topic, especially one that has the potential for political controversy, is bound to be superficial, sensationalist and sometimes simply wrong. To make the story seem more relevant, there is always a desire to find a controversial, and preferably political, angle. We in the Russian Orthodox Church discovered this last year when the reconciliation with Moscow was taking place, and we were treated to various breathless reports that Putin was taking control of the Russian Church Abroad. This latter point falls under the “simply wrong” heading, but the reconciliation received this treatment from media outlets, particularly The Wall Street Journal, because it fit with a preconceived story about Russia and reinforced negative stereotypes about the Orthodox. Obviously, the same thing is at work here in the treatment of Pope Benedict XVI and Catholicism.
I am sympathetic with our Catholic friends, as Pravoslavophobia, as Dr. Trifkovic once dubbed it, is probably one of the few other broadly acceptable prejudices in the U.S. besides anti-Catholicism, and it takes many of the same forms and derives from the same sources. In this most recent episode, those inclined to impute the worst motives and willfully misunderstand or distort Catholic history have latched on to the aspect of the story that they believe validates their view and have chosen to pursue the most political reading of a fundamentally and exclusively religious matter.
Zmirak’s point about “only Catholics need comment” is simply bogus. The world doesn’t work that way anymore, and especially shouldn’t for the self-understanding of the Catholic Church. Catholic does mean universal after all.
Btw, not that anybody has to care, but I am some of a Pravoslavophobe (a new word for me). As near as I can see, all the energy in Orthodoxy for the last couple of centuries or so is a matter of haterade against the Romans, for reasons that strike me as embarrassingly weak.
The Vatican has had plenty to say about the Episcopal Church’s affairs, to give but one example. She hasn’t been afraid to comment on Muslim affairs either. The caution shouldn’t be because it is untoward, but because the odds of one making a silly comment are high.
As to the sordid affair, this seems to be an uniquely American affliction. No, I won’t minimize the outrageousness of Williamson. Regretably any comparison between him and others that are unsympathetic to ideological Zionism will just bring the others into disrepute. IIRC, the guy is also a 9/11 truther. Anyhow, yes there is a real tension between the larger Jewish community and the Vatican over this action. But no, it doesn’t even make the top ten on a slights list.
Lacking from many of the American commentators including Ross and Amy is the actual recent history. This was foreshadowed by a couple traditionalist orders re-entering communion with Rome following the Motu Proprio declaring the right to celebrate the Old Mass was of the priest himself. The idea that this is to “fill the pews” is as riduculous being alleged here as it is when said to be the reason behind support for immigrants.
I suppose outside criticism is the price of ecumenical “dialogue,” which makes for a good argument against the latter.
As for the claim about Orthodoxy, the idea that the Orthodox during the last few centuries have been obsessively anti-Catholic reveals a remarkable lack of familiarity with Orthodox intellectual and spiritual life during that period. Revival of Hesychasm among the Slavs, the councils of Jassy and Jerusalem, the translation of the Philokalia by St. Paissy Velichovsky and the spiritual instruction of the elders of Optina, to name a few notable things during the past few centuries, were not particularly anti-Catholic in nature. Obviously, the two churches developed separately and were antagonists in the countries where the population was divided between them, but one might dismiss the entire Protestant world since its inception as being driven by nothing more than hatred of Rome, which would miss everything that mattered about their tradition.
Indeed, Jassy and Jerusalem show the heavy influence of post-Tridentine Catholic argumentation regarding controversies over predestination and transubstantiation. To the extent that there is today a more pointedly anti-scholastic and anti-Augustinian streak in Orthodox theology, this is a correction, perhaps an overcorrection, against the extensive influence of Catholicism on Orthodoxy in eastern Europe and the Near East during the modern period. Catholic polemics against Palamism easily match anything that was sent the other way. Then again, you would have to know something about Orthodox history to know this, and normally one of the common characteristics of Pravoslavophobes is their remarkable ignorance about this subject.
I’m thinking more about the filioque and the complaints against Roman “proselytism”, both of which seem to me to be something of a joke, though I’m assured the Orthodox take it all very seriously.
The various forms of Western Protestantism is a good counterpoint, because Catholic/Prot relations are for the most part pretty civil, at least now, in spite of the (imo) more substantial theological differences separating them.
I suppose outside criticism is the price of ecumenical “dialogue,†which makes for a good argument against the latter.
There’s more to it than that. In both Catholic and Orthodox traditions, religion has a very public character. More to the point, the belief is that acts of the respective Churches have import to more than just the members. When Cardinal Ratzinger was named Pope, opinions were expressed because the act was a substantive change and not confided to the Catholic Church. The loss of censure against Williamson is public and substanstive, but at the end of the day he is still a bishop not enjoying communion and lacking a jurisdiction. If he would have been named Pope, the idea that people should concern themselves with their own fruits and nuts would be recognized as silly.
Yes, Catholic-Protestant relations are civil now, just as Catholic-Orthodox relations are today largely civil. Obviously, there are exceptions. For every Greek protesting the Pope’s visit, you have a John Hagee out there fulminating against the evils of Babylon, etc.
Very few people in the Orthodox Church spend much time thinking about the Filioque. It was/is a dispute that was confined to bishops and theologians far more than most of the major controversies of antiquity and the middle ages. Yes, I think the innovation was a mistake made for understandable reasons to counter Arianism and I also think it is a serious error, but that does not cause me or my Orthodox friends to dwell on it, and I belong to one of the most conservative and anti-ecumenist Orthodox jurisdictions.
If the situations were reversed and the Orthodox were taking advantage of a weakened and persecuted Catholic Church, the complaints would probably not seem so trivial. Once again, outside of Ukraine and some parts of Russia this is not a major issue. Obviously, it would improve relations between the churches if it weren’t happening, but the idea that most Orthodox people are exercised mainly by these things or that this is where most of the “energy” in Orthodoxy is today suggests that you aren’t familiar with many Orthodox people. The monastic revival on Athos and the growth of monasticism here in the U.S. have nothing to do with what you’re talking about.
I thought the filioque was supposedly the theological fig leaf for the knee-jerk reaction against Roman invasion. So if not that, then what? The Orthodox already accept Roman primacy, at least in theory, right?
Well, it’s more than a “fig leaf” in any case, but there are several other outstanding points of contention. Recognizing primacy of honor is entirely different from accepting supremacy and infallibility as currently understood. There is also significant disagreement over teachings regarding the Most Holy Lady Theotokos. The latter might not have to be a cause for division, but it is one of the lesser disputes. There are radical differences in charitology that relate back to arguments over Palamism, and these are unlikely to be resolved very easily.
Ross’ and Amy’s explication of this controversy are very helpful. The Vatican can do a better job explaining themselves to the world.
But a fundamental distinction needs to be drawn between doctrinal disputes within Christendom and assaults on Christians from outside. I gather there has been a breech in relations between the Vatican and Israel over this matter. Zmirak’s position is that it is no one’s business who the Pope appoints as Bishop in his own church. In as much as most Christians want to be in communion with one another, their opinions on such matters are understandable. For officials of other faiths to insert themselves into such matters is simply a matter of bad manners. And they should be treated accordingly.