Polycrates: Proto-Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox?

Patiently crawling through Jurgens' The Faith of the Early Fathers, I came upon a fascinating dispute between two ancient bishops of the Church, Polycrates of Ephesus and Victor of Rome (c. 190 A.D.) (Jurgens, Vol. 1, at 82).  Particularly interesting are the sources of authority to which these men appealed or upon which they apparently acted.

According to Eusebius (Church History, Book V, Ch. 23), the bishops of Asia [Minor] followed a tradition dating Easter on the 14th day of Nisan, the date of the Jewish celebration of Passover.  This occurred regardless of the day of the week on which Passover fell.  However, this was "not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world," who instead celebrated Easter on the day "of the Resurrection of our Savior," Sunday (Id.).

St. Victor, the late-second century Bishop of Rome, desired unity in the worldwide Church's observance of Easter (Catholic Encyclopedia: Pope St. Victor I).  He called together the Italian bishops in what is the earliest known Roman synod.  He also "wrote to the leading bishops of the various districts, urging them to call together the bishops of their sections of the country and to take counsel with them on the question of the Easter festival." (Id.).  In the east, he wrote to Bishop Polycrates, leader of bishops of Asia Minor, to induce him to call a council of Asian bishops to address the matter. 

Responses from all fronts but Asia affirmed the celebration of Easter on Sunday.  Bishop Polycrates rejected Bishop Victor's instruction to change the celebration date (Jurgens, at 83).  Eusebius records that Victor excommunicated the Asian bishops in response, and for this strong-arm tactic, received the reproof of several (Church History, Book V, Ch. 24).  Jurgens states that information of this excommunication is "held in considerable suspicion," and that the likes of St. Irenaeus, who pleaded for toleration for the sake of unity, may have held Victor to a mere threatening of excommunication (Jurgens at 82).  

Little else is known about this early dispute, but much of informative value can be derived.  Some have cited the episode as evidence that Polycrates represents a proto-Protestant Bible Christian, and that the Roman Bishop holds no special authority.  (Note that for such Christians it inexplicably does not follow that we must celebrate Easter on Nisan 14.)  But the events surrounding Polycrates' letter of rejection have also been interpreted as showing the opposite proposition, i.e., Victor's headship over "Catholic Christendom" (Cath. Encyc.: Pope St. Victor I). 

So was Polycrates' view of authority proto-Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox?  In his letter rejecting Sunday Easter, he clearly states the authorities by which he refuses Victor's instruction.  He first cites the Nisan 14 Easter tradition in Asia, held by the likes of the Apostle Philip, the Apostle John, Polycarp, and other departed saints, as well as his own bishop-kinsmen who preceded him.  He then states that this traditional observance is "according to the Gospel" and an adherence "to the rule of faith."  He notes his seasoned age, his acquaintance with "the brethren throughout the world," and his having "read through the entire Holy Scriptures," and declares that he is not afraid of the threats of men, but must rather obey God.  Finally, he relies upon the consensus of the "most numerous" bishops he called together upon Victor's request, who approved of Polycrates' own view (Church History, Book V, Ch. 24). 

Polycrates' appeal to having read the Holy Scriptures, and his chiding use of Acts 5:29 ("We must obey God rather than men.") notwithstanding, it seems hard to mistake his view of authority for the Protestant one.  He relied upon tradition and other authorities before Scripture, and he lived in an age of an open canon.  Polycrates hardly can be claimed to have abided by the rule of sola Scriptura.  Whichever of these two adversaries one fancies in this dispute, one is fancying some view of authority other than the Protestant one.

Far more from Polycrates' letter resembles the Orthodox view on authority: a primary reliance on tradition, including an invocation of named Apostles preceding him in his particular church; adherence to the "rule of faith"; the supposed universality of the held belief; the Holy Scriptures; and the agreement of a council of bishops (see Tradition in the Orthodox Church, available here).  Indeed, the authority to which Polycrates appealed in rejecting Victor seems distinct from the Catholic view only in his rejection of the universal authority of the Bishop of Rome.

But whatever we say of Polycrates, we must not lose sight of Victor -- calling for councils, ruling on a divisive matter, receiving obedient rebuke (save for Polycrates).  And ultimately, although the details are lost to history, one must take note of the fact that Victor's determination carried the day.  It is interesting that papal primacy has not been so self-evident as to be a sine qua non of faithful catholicity throughout the ages, especially in the east.  Rather, its necessity in the face of heresy or adversity seems to have propped up progressively germinating forms of the doctrine.  Whatever the lesson of Polycrates and Victor for today, it is much nearer an analogy to the dispute between the separated Orthodox and Latin Churches than to the dispute between the Latin Church and Protestant groups. 

"Futile Reform"

In his days as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope Benedict XVI put together a book from a collection of smaller writings and speeches. This book, Called to Communion, his been a bit of a treasure trove for me. It is short, and fairly accessible, both benefits during a rather busy period in my life.

In his chapter entitled "A Company in Constant Reform", Benedict XVI takes up the matter of futile reforms. Here's a section that I found noteworthy, so I share it here:

[Concerning this work of reform, e]verything that men make can also be undone again by others. Everything that has its origin in human likes can be disliked by others. Everything that one majority decides upon can be revoked by another majority. A church based on human resolutions becomes a merely human church. It is reduced to the level of the makeable, of the obvious, of opinion. Opinion replaces faith. And in fact, in the self-made formulas of faith with which I am acquainted, the meaning of the words "I believe" never signifies anything beyond "we opine". Ultimately, the self-made church savors of the "self", which always has a bitter taste to the other self and just as soon reveals its petty insignificance. A self-made church is reduced to the empirical domain and thus, precisely as a dream, comes to nothing. (emphasis added)

I find it inescapable to see that, in choosing between a Catholic/Orthodox model of Church and a Protestant/Post-protestant model, we are choosing between a God-made and a man-made institution. "A self-made church...comes to nothing" indeed.

That We Might Become God

I read this yesterday in the Catholic Catechism, and felt a little confused by it (emphasis added):

460 The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature":[] "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God."79 "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."80 "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."81

Footnotes are as follows:
79 St. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. 3, 19, 1: PG 7/1, 939.
80 St. Athanasius, De inc. 54, 3: PG 25, 192B.
81 St. Thomas Aquinas, Opusc. 57, 1-4.

I do not understand in what sense man might become God. This sentiment, which as far as I know is found only here in the Catechism, reminds me of the Orthodox notion of deification. I was unaware of its firm position within Catholic thought as well. My understanding is that the Orthodox position qualifies the meaning of "become God" to such an extent that I no longer see the purpose of using those words. If I mean to say that in my walk of faith, I can be blessed by the Holy Spirit to take on the very qualities of God's holiness, why not say just that? Why say, "you can become God, but of course I don't mean that in an ontological sense"? Words are delicate things, and weak minds like mine are easily confused and made afoul. Perhaps this is my own problem, and not the Church's though.

"The Catholicity Question"

The Catholicity Question is a new blog with promise:

"For the past decade, I’ve been working, worshipping, and thinking through what various people label “Reformed Catholicism,” “Protesting Catholicism,” or “High Church Calvinism.” I love this world, and have almost joined the Anglican Church on a few occasions. Eastern Orthodoxy holds quite a bit of attraction, but I can’t get over the icons and veneration of the saints. I’m too much of a Protestant to even think about joining the Roman Catholic church, though I read Roman Catholic authors without discrimination."

Argue The Forest, Not The Trees

I blogged here that I could no longer confess the doctrine of sola Scriptura, leaving me in a sort of spiritual no-man's-land. That sentiment has not changed since September 1, 2007, but it has not clearly progressed either.

Marian angst (I use this as a term of art; let me know if you're not sure what I mean) is a recurring problem. At times it feels critically acute, and at other times the sensation is minimal. I believe that it is probably a proxy feeling for overall anxiety over subscribing to a belief that the (i.e., "a", or "one") Church holds infallible interpretive authority over Divine Revelation. Therefore, and because of the formality of its decrees, this feeling is most acute vis-à-vis the Catholic Church, even where the Orthodox Churches may articulate Marian doctrines with stronger emotive language.

So while I have toed the line of entering the Catholic Church for some time, this recurring angst makes me think I need to step back and try as well as possible to objectively recapitulate and reconsider what I believe to be the constitution of Christ's Church. While I realize that I am incapable of objectively viewing the church, I'd like to try all the same. By “objective”, I will mean “expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations” (Merriam-Webster).

I think that I tried something similar here, where I asked five questions related to authority that I hoped were fair and not loaded to lead to a certain conclusion. Here I will try to describe the analytical steps I think I need to pursue, without using the form of question and answer. There’s an old law school trick to writing I’ll use: Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion. I’ll try that here.

To be clear, I don’t mean to discuss issues like whether the Catholics are wrong for 'violating' the “call no man father” verse, or the Orthodox are wrong because they had a Sultan select their hierarch, or the Protestants are wrong for excluding the apocrypha/deuterocanon. My experience is that for every such argument, there is some reply, and for most, there is an able reply. I do mean to discuss the overall analytical framework I think I need to use when considering ecumenicism, and how those facts and arguments should fit within the framework.

ISSUE:

I'd like to consider whether the claims by any one of the major branches of Christianity are objectively superior to the others (I realize this is an idealist approach).

First, I assume that anyone engaged in this discussion, like me, believes and so assumes that Christ is True and not false. From there I assume that each candidate Church model sees at its core a mission to preserve and transmit the Gospel-Truth (i.e., Logos or Word). Other functions of the Church (e.g., sacramental, communal) flow from the substance of the Gospel-Truth that the Church has preserved and transmitted. In this way, the candidates, indeed all of Christianity, aims to bear Witness to the world of the Messiah’s coming. Church, in my expression “candidate Church model” simply means God's people, however additionally defined by the particular candidates (in other words, I don’t mean to load that expression with lots of biased meaning).

So assuming that Christ is True, and that the candidates, as witnesses, all preserve and transmit His Truth, the discussion instantly turns to authority. By what authority does a candidate articulate and develop the Gospel-Truth? Disputes of authority have also been the catalysts of all schism within Christianity, so it’s a natural focal point.

A recent discussion helped me to see three major authority views or camps within Christianity: Papalism, Conciliarism and Biblicism. Each understands the Church's place in transmitting and safeguarding the Logos differently, and each has a different conclusion as to what the primary and subordinate principles of the Logos are. I suppose I could add "Individualist" to these three, which would look approximately like this, "whatever I understand to be true about Jesus from my feelings and from whatever I accept to be true from this book the Bible." I'm not going to add that though.

The nature and essence of the Logos is the fundamental question for the Church; to understand the nature and essence one must understand the Church, to understand the Church, one must see the Church as either Papalist, Conciliarist, or Biblicist (that is, one must have a view of authority). So my issue becomes which of these three camps has the objectively superior claim as preservationist, propagator, and articulator of the Logos.

The Biblicist believes that all authority for the Church is contained within the Bible. The Logos was exclusively preserved within its written contents, and it has been propagated through the ages. In our culture, while Biblicist groups are diverse in outward appearance, they share this view of authority – the Logos is co-extensive with the contents of the Protestant Bible. The Baptists and those that describe themselves as "fundamentalist", many branches of Reformed, Lutheran and other traditional denominations that call themselves "Evangelical", and perhaps Charismatic groups would fall within this camp.

The Conciliarist believes that authority for the Church is contained within ecclesial councils. The Logos has been preserved and propagated within the Bible and articulated by authoritative councils. I have learned of a Protestant group that considers itself conciliarist, but the traditional Anglicans and the Orthodox are also in this camp. They would add that the Logos is preserved and propagated within the Church proper, the Bible representing only a part of this Gospel-Truth. [Note: in an attempt to remain objective, I accept the candidates’ claims as true, so I accept the traditional Anglican position that they are not protestant.]

I am only newly aware of the protestant conciliarist position, known as the "magisterial protestant". This camp believes that the councils of the church, while not the source of all authority, still have real authority. These reformers perceive the state, at least classically, as playing some role in empowering these authorities and enforcing their authority. These reformers seek to turn back to the fundamental roots of the Reformation, and seek to subscribe to its traditional confessions, depending on where one lives (see here for some subscribers to this position). I'm still learning about this view, so I should not try to explain it further. But suffice it to say that the Bible is not the source of all authority to the magisterial protestant conciliarist, but is the source of ultimate authority. Only the Bible is infallible, and all articulation of the Logos will be measured by the authorities (and not the laity) against the Bible.

The Orthodox and the traditional Anglicans are within the Conciliarist camp, and have an older claim to its essence. They are both distinct from the magisterial protestants by their subscription to Apostolic Succession, that is, the belief that their Bishops have ties by succession of ordination back to the Apostles. [Note, again, I accept the traditional Anglican position as true for these purposes.] The authority of the Church and its evangelization and articulation of the Logos subsist within the Church itself. I have only recently begun making myself smart on the Anglo-Catholic view that their ties to the Apostles extend through the days of Henry VIII, so I will stop here (see here for a subscriber to this position). I don't mean to minimize distinctions between traditional Anglicans and the Orthodox (and that would be an absurd undertaking), but only leave it hear because if I tried to go on, I might paint the traditional Anglican position in an unfair light.

Finally, the Papalists (and, as I've learned, this is not the same as the derogatory use of the term "Papist"), who are not just Latin Rite (Roman) Catholics, but also their Eastern rites, believe that the Pope is not only first in honor among Bishops in council, but has actual authority over the other Bishops. Under this view too, authority exists within the Church, but binding dogmatic articulations of the Logos can flow from councils and the Pope alike.

RULE:

By what standard can I objectively judge which candidate is the right witness to and articulation of the Gospel-Truth in the 21st century? I must use reason and faith, which includes prayer, to do so. The Scriptures cannot be an independent standard by which to reach the right conclusion because 1) not all 'candidate' churches believe in the same canon of Scripture, and 2) their interpretation or articulation is part of the very essence of this dispute (i.e., what is the "Truth" handed down through the ages from Christ, assuming He is True). The Scriptures could be used, however, as a measure of the internal integrity of each candidate's claims. E.g., if a book identified by Church X as canonical and infallible says "Blessed are the poor", and that candidate church teaches, "Blessed are the Healthy and Wealthy", we find evidence that Church X is not teaching the Truth of Christ. But ultimately this would only be evidence that must be judged by reason because of competing interpretations and hermeneutic methods. I guess I have no better rule, then, than reason (which gauges the internal integrity of each belief system) informed by faith (which relies on prayer).

ANALYSIS:

I have (personally) ruled out the Biblicist position, as I stated in my post rejecting the validity of the Biblicist view of sola Scriptura cited above. The position lacks internal integrity, as it commands that all authority flows from the Bible alone, yet the Bible does not articulate a Bible alone position, nor is it self-identifying, in terms of its canon. Indeed, a multitude of rationales have been used to justify the existing Protestant canon. I withhold personal judgment on whether the magisterial protestant means something different by “sola Scriptura” than does the Biblicist, and whether his view of authority would allow the creation of canon. I believe that the majority view in my denomination (the PCA) is Biblicist, though there seems to be strong (and perhaps growing) resistance to this position (that is, there are factions of magisterial reformers who recognize the need for other authority, albeit fallible).

I started with the Biblicist position because it could be easily removed from my table. This is my no-man’s land: Church ≠ Biblicism, therefore Church = Conciliarism or Papalism. From here we come to real contention at every turn. I analyze the remaining candidates by first asking whether the Church’s own authority is fallible or infallible. The infallible camp consists of the Orthodox and Catholics, and the fallible camp consists of traditional Anglicans and magisterial Protestants.

I am surprised to find that, so long after I started my meager efforts at discerning the proper constitution of Christ’s Church, I am not certain that it has to be infallible. One of the earliest ‘shoes to drop’ for me was coming to see that a fallible church fallibly identifying a canon of scripture and a doctrine about its infallibility had serious problems of logic. And yet I read the earnestness of certain members of these camps, and can’t help but think that I might just be missing a deeper truth to their views. I still hold out some shred of hope, that the Holy Spirit could work within and preserve even a fallible Church. After all, early particular churches fell into grave error (e.g., the Church at Corinth), as did the Apostle Peter (as Protestants are fond of observing).

Taking a Newman-like view of doctrinal development may be fruitful in this context. The true principles of the fallible-camp candidates should come to light over time, as their theorems are put to practice and bear (or fail to bear) fruit. This method of thinking speaks somewhat against the magisterial protestant, who holds a model of church in his head, but can point to its existence nowhere (and its failure everywhere). The Anglican too is plagued by failures from within his camp.

But I need to consider and pray more about this before ruling out the fallible camp. I still don’t understand how the magisterial protestant differs from the Biblicist in essence, and I have only recently come to think I should give the traditional Anglican claim to Apostolic Succession more consideration. Perhaps their take that there was real, but fallible authority makes more sense than I give it credit. They would say that the authorities are the only ones who should correct error, not the laity (although in the magisterial protestant view, if the authorities become entirely corrupt, the faithful laity are free to, indeed called to assume the reigns and Reform).

On the infallible side of the house, the analysis necessary to make a rational conclusion between the claims of the Orthodox and the Catholics is a real head-splitter. I see two main ways to resolve this quest.

First, one could accede to the hemisphere in which God has them. If you’re in the West, just stay with the Western Church. However, this makes relative the fundamental differences that exist between the candidates’ view of authority, and the doctrinal views that have flowed therefrom over the last millennium plus. In other words, you would be saying that it doesn’t really matter to God that the filioque was added; what matters is that we participate with the representation of the Church that is native to our own land. Further, the geographical East-West distinction may be more notional than real. The Papalist camp does have a real presence (pardon the pun) in the East, and the Orthodox churches in the states are working hard to move beyond being mere immigrant churches, such that their presence as Western churches is real too (see this excellent post discussing how Orthodoxy in America is becoming “native”). So, while I don’t find a homesteading view all that compelling, I respect it, and I hear its advocacy often. The six-of-one-half-dozen-of-the-other crowd can point to impressive similarities between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, but similarity is only plain when seen relative to the Protestantism.

Second, one can immerse one’s self in history. This effort overwhelms me. I have read and read and read the primary sources (the Eastern and Western Fathers) as well as secondary sources (books on church history, particularly describing both ‘halves’ of the Church). I feel like I only barely understand what happened after the early persecution ended, and what happened after the first millennia rolled into the second. I suppose that coupled with prayer and faith, applying reason to a deep study of history could give one the knowledge of which infallible-camp Church has the claim of Truth in its evangelization and articulation of the Logos. The temptation to resolve this difficult and time-consuming method of analysis by leaning on the homesteading view should be carefully avoided.

The fundamental dispute between Orthodoxy and Catholicism is about authority, so if I rule out fallible conciliar churches, I would be forced to decide between the infallilble conciliar model for church, and the infallibile papal model. The factual arguments in favor of each are too much for me to get into here, but I will note that arguments of Biblical and Patristic support for Papalism are persuasive, as are arguments about the meaning of the Council of Jerusalem recorded in Acts 15 and early church conciliar practice.

Finally, reason needs to turn its eyes to the doctrines of these churches. If Catholic or Orthodox Marian dogmas and doctrines, for example, conflict with one’s use of reason, informed by faith, it could provide an independent basis for looking elsewhere. This has been the premise behind my view that if all logic councils against a sola Scriptura view, but I believe that all alternative groups practice idolatry (let’s say), I must have been mistaken about sola Scriptura.

CONCLUSION:

While my attempt at objectively viewing the church has not yielded any clear winners (and if it did, I’d probably be further away from objectivity than I hope), it has taught me something. Those deeply entrenched and self-assured of the rightness of their own position ought to be well equipped to explain themselves. We should realize that each of our trench-warfare debate points (like whether we can call any man father, whether praying to saints is right or wrong, etc.) fits in a larger debate about what the Church is and is meant to be. For the sake of unity, we must try to see the forest through the trees.

[This is the best I can do with the time I have, and I realize that this is a paltry effort. I am going to keep this document at least for my own personal reference, and will update and correct my use of terms, analysis and conclusions as problems are pointed out to me. So I would appreciate constructive input if for no other reason than my own benefit.]

Early Church Worship

If you are interested in learning how the earliest Christians worshipped God (and ordered their services), please read this excellent article from the Orthodox Liturgica.com.

(HT: Tim Troutman)

It spells out the development of Christian worship practices from Jewish-synagogue roots, to attending both Jewish and Christian services, and finally to being excluded from Jewish practice, and left exclusively to Christian practice.

I was particularly interested in the dual practice of conducting an "Agape Meal" (or "Fellowship Meal") and Eucharistic celebration. I've read (from Reformed writings that I can't put my thumb on) the theory that the Agape meal was one and the same with communion. This has been used to justify children communing (paedocommunion), and to detract from stronger sacramental sentimentalities in the Lord's Supper.

The way one handles, interprets and applies the lessons of History has consequences.

Peter, Oakseed Of Papalism

Sometimes it's hard to remember why I ever got swept up in curiosity about the Apostolic Churches. The more I experience of Catholicism in practice, the more I find that makes me cringe.

But then I look back, and my memory is quickly revived. In Protestantism, all truth seems relative, made subject to individual will. Authority is tentatively placed in the hands of 66 Bible books, but no one can explain, without reaching for pluriform post hoc justifications, what the authority of the placement of the Bible as authority and the definition of its canon was.

19th-Century Orthodox writer Vladimir Soloviev has had some of his writings recompiled into the brief book "The Russian Church and the Papacy". Catholic Answers publishes the work, which gives a noteworthy critique of the Eastern Orthodox approach to church authority (especially biting is his articulated claim that secular emperors orchestrated the various heresies the Church has faced). The recent ecumenical dialogue between the Catholic Church and certain Orthodox theologians makes his discussion of the authoritative, and not merely honorific, primacy of the Roman Bishop seem prescient. There's nothing like authority to cure malaise over individualism.

He says about the development of the doctrine of Papal Primacy:

"Scripture tells us of the primacy of Peter; his right to absolute sovereign authority in the Church is attested by Orthodox tradition [(having previously cited, inter alia, St. John Chrysostom)]; but no one possessed of any historical feeling or indeed of any ordinary common sense would expect to find legally defined powers taking effect according to fixed rules in the primitive Church, not only of the period when "the multitude of believers had but one heart and one soul" but also long after. There is always the temptation to expect to find the branches of the oak in the acorn. The real and living seed of the supreme authority of the Church which we discern in the prince of the apostles could only be displayed in the primitive Church by practical leadership on the part of Peter in every matter which concerned the universal Church, and this is what we actually find int he Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles (emphasis mine; pp. 152-153)."

Studying doctrinal development has been challenging and rewarding. I recommend it to anyone hoping to learn from the practices of the early Church.

Marian Prayers and Angst

It is no small wonder that, as a conservative Reformed Protestant, one of the hardest concepts for me to accept (or even tolerate) about the great Apostolic Churches is their Marian devotions. From what I've read, mine is not an uncommon experience. While not the prima facie catalyst of the Reformation, I note that today it seems to be the most prominent issue with which we justify our divisions. My ordained Reformed dad has opined that if it weren't for Marianism, the church could have reunited shortly after the Council of Trent. Would that this had been true.

While the formal Catholic teachings on Marianism stand up to some measure of my (admitedly individualistic) scrutiny, I fester over the Marian 'lex orandi' side of things. I have been repeatedly assured by Catholic Aplogetic literature that any prayer to Mary is no more than a petition for her to pray for us. To ask her or any saint to do more than petition to Jesus is to exceed permissible bounds.

The 'Hail, Mary' sure seems to fit safely within that rule, what Fr. Neuhaus would call rightly ordered devotion. But how about the traditional prayer, 'Hail, Holy Queen'?

"Hail, Holy Queen, Mother of Mercy, our life, our sweetness and our hope! To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve; to thee do we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping in this valley of tears. Turn then, most gracious advocate, thine eyes of mercy toward us, and after this our exile, show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus. O clement, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary!"

It is surely a hard teaching that asking the Blessed Mother to turn her eyes of mercy toward us is formally nothing more than asking for her intercessory prayers. It would seem more safely within the confines of formal teaching to say 'pray that we may receive your Son's mercy.' I know, I'm biased -- not atuned to the Catholic Marian Pathos. I seek to understand, but see the danger of getting 'rightly oredered devotion' to Mary 'wrong' as a grave matter - superstition of not idolatry.

I know... I know...

UPDATE: Ware And Church History

In an earlier post about Ware's discourse on church history, I made a huge gaff. I omitted a section of substantial importance to sustain my proposition that corruption and illicit practices do not negate the legitimacy of Catholic bishops any more than of Orthodox bishops.

On page 105 (2nd Ed.), Ware discusses the 15th Century treatment of heretics:

"Joseph [St., Abbot of Volokalamsk] upheld the view all but universal in Christendom at this time: if heretics are recalcitrant, the Church must call in the civil arm and resort to prison, torture and if necessary fire."

I raise the matter primarily because I've heard from some considering Orthodoxy that they could not consider becoming Roman Catholic, as that church has tortured and killed people to convince them into the Church. It seems the shoe is on the other foot as well.

The Gnostic Roots of Heresy

The good blogger at PrincipiumUnitatis keeps pumping me with good reading assignments, this time from his own 'pen'. His thesis is that "each of the heresies faced by the Church in the first
millenarian was in some way a denial of the complete divine-human union of Christ's incarnation." This fairly short piece (14 pages heavily foot-noted) is worth the time invested in reading it, especially for one considering the relationship of Orthodoxy and Catholicism to the proper constitution of Christ's Church.

I mean to point out here though two fairly unrelated points that struck me.

1) Here is one of those Luther quotes that made me deliver a staccato and loud "Hmm." in my throat:

"If the words, "I believe that there is a holy Christian people," had been used in the Children's Creed, all the misery connected with this meaningless and obscure word ("church") might easily have been avoided.... Ecclesia ... should mean the holy Christian people, not only of the days of the apostles, who are long since dead, but to the end of the world...." (Martin Luther, On the Councils and the Church – Part III (1539))

I merely comment that his suggested words were not used because they were in no way meant. "Church" is quite Scriptural, and thanks to the clear and repeated metaphors of a building and a body, is not so obscure a word.

2) Our author shares this comment, "By denying the efficacy of the sacraments, Zwingli was denying that the blood and water that flowed from Christ's side are our source of salvation. (That blood and water continues to flow from the side of Christ's Body, the Church, in the sacraments; these are the 'rib' by which the Father is making a Bride for His Son.)"

The parenthetical portion is most profound, in my opinion. I won't comment on it, because I have not had time to process its implications fully. I merely post it here because it was one of two profound, eye-opening moments I've had since the start of summer.

Ware Airs Dirty Laundry From History

(See my prefatory piece here.)

Ware's exposition on Orthodox history is clear and forthright. Orthodox history, like Christian history generally, is far too nuanced and complex for me to outline here. My aim is simpler: to highlight some, uh, highlights, and share the impact these may have on the discernment process.

Christendom divided first in the 5th and 6th centuries, when the Oriental Orthodox Churches divided from the 'main body of Christians'. These Oriental Churches are further divided into two, the 'Church of the East' (aka Assyrian, Nestorian or Chaldean), and the 'Non-Chalcedonian Churches' (aka Monophysite). [Note: their separation for not accepting an ecumenical council, and the Orthodox criterion for determining which ecumenical councils are infallible (i.e., that all the church accepts that council) will be a point worth raising at another time.]

The second major division of Christendom occurred at the Great Schism, regularly dated at 1054, but having earlier manifestations of discord and later manifestations of unity. Thus the church was trifurcated in its development amongst the following cultures: Semitic, Greek and Latin.

My opinion. Divisions have been with us from the time of the Apostles to the present. Therefore, a clear rule of proper vs. improper division seems essential, and Christians should be equipped to articulate the rule that they follow.

There was early infighting over the relative rank of the five great Patriarchates. When Constantinople won recognition as second only behind Rome, Alexandria (in third place) was none too happy (which brings to mind Luke 22:24, "A dispute also arose among them, as to which of them was to be regarded as the greatest."). Ware notes that during the first eight centuries, while other Bishops fell into heresy, the Roman See was noted for the purity of its faith (p. 28).

The Eastern Church and State, since Constantine's time, have been closely linked. Constantine himself presided over the first ecumenical council (Nicaea) 'like some heavenly messenger of God' (said Eusebius). The Byzantine Emperor was believed to be God's living Icon, so that it was proper for Christians to Prostrate themselves before him. The Emperor could do what no other layman could: he wore vestments, censed the altar, held the Eucharistic elements in his hands, and would receive the Eucharist within the sanctuary as only the priests did.

It is interesting to contrast Orthodoxy's early devotion to the Secular Head with later resistance to devotion to the Pope. Ware believes that comparing Byzantium's imperial devotion to 'Caesaro-Papism' is unjust. To prove this he draws the familiar distinction between the separate spheres of sacerdotium and imperium (priesthood and imperial power) (pp. 40-41).

A most incredible tale follows the Moslem invasions. Sultan Mohammed II, conqueror of Constantinople, upon learning that the Patriarchal seat was vacant, personally installed the monk Gennadius as Patriarch (p. 88). Gennadius was a prolific writer against Rome and, Ware notes, the Sultan doubtless chose him to reduce the chance of the Greeks secretly seeking aid from Rome. Orthodoxy accepted this because of their practice of submitting to the imperium. Islam, on the other hand, saw no distinction between religion and imperial power, so the Christian ecclesiastical structure was assigned in toto as a secular administration. The Bishops became government officials, performing as civil heads of the Greek nation. This continued in Turkey until 1923, and in Cyprus until 1977.

Further, the Church's higher administration was plagued with corruption and simony. Each new Patriarch had to pay a costly "berat" to the Sultan to enter office, the cost of which was pushed down the line to the laity. Ware notes that, like in Rome, "everything was for sale." In a sad tale, the office of Patriach turned over often (so as to allow the Sultan to exact more "berats"). Outgoing office holders disappeared or mysteriously turned up dead to create more regular vacancies.

My opinion. Ware said it best: "Nationalism has been the bane of Orthodoxy for the last ten centuries." I learned from this romp through Orthodox history that, at the least, criticisms of Roman simony and corruption can be similarly made against Orthodoxy. If the validity of Apostolic Succession can be destroyed by such wretched human practices, it was destroyed equally in the East as in the West. No list of 'atrocities' is sufficient to settle the questions of succession and division, or to settle what Christ meant in His prayer for Unity and His promise that the Church would prevail. It is only so much hot air.

Ware on Trinity

(See my prefatory piece here, and please note my comment in that combox about using "Ware" vice Bishop Kallistos without any intended disrespect.)

A Catholic suggested to me that the true dispute between Orthodoxy and Catholicism is not the filioque clause or original sin/guilt, but rather the primacy of the Roman See. I give full credit to this view, but feel better about leading up to that topic rather than working down from it.

Ware discusses the Orthodox view of the Trinity in Chapter 11 (page 208 of the 2nd edition). Part of the beauty of Ware's book is manifest in this section: he presents the spectrum of views within Eastern Orthodoxy, and ably compares this to Western Catholic and Protestant beliefs. Trinitarian doctrine makes my head spin; I fear I will badly oversimplify the profound. It takes only the slightest mishandling of words on this topic to throw off the balance. I will be cautious and, Lord willing, may be able to give you a flavor of how Ware sets out the trinitarian 'landscape'. Please remember that mine is only a layman's summary.

The Orthodox make use of the 'apophatic' and 'cataphatic' expository methods. By the former, they describe a doctrine in negative terms (e.g., Jesus was not made), and by the latter, they describe it in affirmative terms (e.g., Jesus was begotten). With trinitarian doctrine, negative language is essential to balance a positive description of the relationship within the Godhead.

Ware begins with this: God is transcendent over His creation, and nothing of the created order will ever have the slightest communion with the supreme nature. But God is not cut off from His creation. Rather, He is within it. Here the Orthodox employ a distinction between God's essence and His energies. His essence remains unapproachable, but His energies come down to us. [I note, as an aside, that this distinction sounds Scholastic. Ware is elsewhere highly critical of Western subjugation to Scholasticism.]

God is not a single person, but a Trinity of persons, each of whom dwells in the other two by virtue of a perpetual movement of love. While united, God is not a unity.

"Procession" is where it gets tricky. There is a distinction between the eternal procession of the Son, and His temporal mission. So the filioque dispute is not over the outward action of the Trinity toward creation (i.e., the temporal mission), but about the eternal relations within the Godhead. In terms of the sending of the Holy Spirit to His temporal mission, East and West are in accord. But in terms of eternal procession, we are not. The Orthodox point to John 15:26 as a proof-text ("But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me." (ESV)).

The Father is the origin and cause of the Godhead [this is where my head swims, where we say that the Father 'caused' the other Persons of the Godhead, but that he did not 'make' or 'create' them...]. The 'hawk' Orthodox view says that to see Jesus as a mutual cause of the Holy Spirit is heresy as it imbalances the Trinity, leading either to ditheism or semi-Sabellianism (i.e., modalism). Under this imbalance, either there were two separate 'causes' of the Holy Spirit (leading to ditheism), or the persons of Father and Son are dangerously blurred when acting together as one 'cause'. This latter view, by confusing the Persons, destroys their uniqueness and hampers the 'monarchy' role that is ascribable to the Father alone.

Therefore, in the West the principle of unity within the Godhead flows from their shared essence and not from the person of the Father. The West has come to understand the persons of the Godhead not in terms of their personal characteristics, but in terms of the relationships within. This makes God remote and abstract, not the personal God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. As the West wrongly stressed unity over diversity in its characterization of the Godhead, so it came to wrongly stress unity over diversity in its view of the Church.

Ware is careful to cabin how far this 'hawk' view should be taken, and he optimistically describes the 'dove' view, a view which holds much greater ecumenical hope. The 'doves' say that a critique of the Western doctrine is only effective when pushing Western views to the extreme. They note that if Orthodox views are likewise taken to the extreme, they could be seen as leading to Tritheism.

My thoughts? I must admit that the notion of eternal procession was foreign to me. I understood the filioque dispute to be about the transmission of the Holy Spirit to the created order, and, in that light, did not understand Orthodox objections to the Western view. I better understand their sensitivity now. However, my 'tritheism' feathers were ruffled as I read through this description of Orthodox teaching. It is hard to digest their sharp distinction between the Son and the Holy Spirit, and indeed between the Son and the Father.

I was also surprised by how hurriedly my Protestant views grabbed for the lifelines of Catholic theology. Especially in light of trinitarian doctrine, Protestantism is truly Western; our stomach is filled with Western tradition before we even come to the table of the Holy Scriptures to feed on the Word.

Finally, this is truly, absolutely, and certainly an issue of far greater complexity and importance than a layman can deduce from his reading of Scriptures. If I had to write a dissertation on the Trinity with nothing for source material but my Bible, what would my conclusion look like? I would not even come close to the refined nature of the East/West dispute. This is an issue for the Church to settle, and not for the individual.

Ware and "The Orthodox Church"

(WARNING: Another prefatory piece!)

If the feud between Western Catholicism and Western Protestantism is a complex picture, adding the Orthodox Church to the discussion gives that complexity a third dimension. For me, it CUBES the confusion in the image I am trying to discern. Where there were 9 difficult facets with which to wrestle, there now seem to be 27.

With such pessimism in mind, I picked up the oft-recommended Penguin soon-to-be-Classic "The Orthodox Church", by Timothy Ware, aka Bishop Kallistos of Diokleia (for major excerpts, see here).

For the very well read, the book is likely too brief, and not heavily enough footnoted. But I, for one, feel foolish for not having read it sooner. Unless you are already quite familiar with Orthodoxy, it is a must-read.

Lord willing, I would like to do a few posts on Ware's work, as Orthodox v. Catholic seems to invoke spirited discourse. For example, I've learned that certain critiques of Catholicism, such as its propensity to have the state torture or kill non-believers, can be made with equal vigor against Orthodoxy. I've learned that the unity claimed under Orthodoxy's title is a markedly different unity than that which the Roman Catholic Church claims to defend. I've learned that the Orthodox teaching on Trinity is shockingly foreign to me as a Protestant.

In trying to discern the proper constitution of Christ's Church, the chore of addressing the Great Schism seems much larger than pondering our Western Reformation.

Unity, Orthodoxy, and Catholicism

Please note two excellent comments by Joseph, a Catholic contributor, on views held by Orthodoxy and Catholicism about the other's authority, posted on August 21st here. I note on his behalf that he merely intended to share his layman's perspective, and was not looking to pick a fight. If anyone wants to argue either side, I'll take up the other (for fun).

If it has taken me three years to decide if I believe sola Scriptura to be tenable, it seems like it would take me a lifetime to decide if the Catholics or the Orthodox take the right position (if its even an either-or query).