|
|
Journeyman
A Journal for the Inquiring Christian
Vol. 1, No. 3, March 2002
An Orthodox Reply
| Overview: Replying to The Two-Fold Magisterium, Fr. Gregory notes how Orthodox views of the authority of the church sometimes harmonize with and sometimes contrast with the western view, and how some of this may apply to Dulles' approach. This essay was culled (with permission) from Fr. Gregory's personal reply to me. |
I greatly enjoyed reading your review — most edifying. I think you correctly express the Orthodox position on those points where you reference the Eastern Church. However, because of some of the fundamental differences between the Eastern and Western Churches with reference to the understanding of the nature of the Church, Orthodox don't necessarily agree or disagree with Roman Catholic answers to many of the questions — they ask completely different questions all together. Our emphasis tends to be on the theanthropic nature of the Church, and we approach all issues from that perspective. Now, this certainly doesn't rule out the eventual reconciliation between East and West (something we all pray for, I think), since unity does not necessarily imply uniformity, either in forms of worship or in theological understandings (other than, of course, basic points of dogma).
Perhaps you have read Alexei Khomiakov's paper, "The Church is One"? While not specifically addressing the points raised in your review, it does offer a thoroughly Orthodox understanding of some basic issues.
(Editor's note: citations from the article are provided in blue text. Fr. Gregory's comments follow.)
Please remember that these are my own comments — I do not pretend to speak for the Orthodox Church, so I may be incorrect in some of them.
"Ecumenical dialog forces the hierarchy to refine its presentation of dogma to win the assent of all Christians..."
Rather than speaking of the assent of all Christians, I would look for the assent of the Church, which, by the grace of the presence of the Holy Spirit within her, knows what is Truth, and what is false teachings.
"As the proposal stands I would say that theologians are part of both groups."
Yes! I think that, in the East, there have been more lay theologians than in the West. In any event, since the Christian Faith is not something to be rationally understood so much as it is a way of life, or even life itself, some of the "best" Christians have been those with little or no formal theological education.
"Dulles' approach to discipleship (as summarized, and possibly modified herein) offers a way to bridge the gaps between Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox churches."
I think that only Truth can bridge the gap. Before there can be reconciliation, false teachings must be decried. To quote Khomiakov:
Wherefore the Church has not been, nor could she be, changed or obscured, nor could she have fallen away, for then she would have been deprived of the spirit of truth. It is impossible that there should have been a time when she could have received error into her bosom, or when the laity, presbyters, and bishops had submitted to instructions or teaching inconsistent with the teaching and spirit of Christ. The man who should say that such a weakening of the spirit of Christ could possibly come to pass within her knows nothing of the Church, and is altogether alien to her. Moreover, a partial revolt against false doctrines, together with the retention or acceptance of other false doctrines, neither is, nor could be, the work of the Church; for within her, according to her very essence, there must always have been preachers and teachers and martyrs confessing, not partial truth with an admixture of error, but the full and unadulterated truth. The Church knows nothing of partial truth and partial error, but only the whole truth without admixture of error. And the man who is living within the Church does not submit to false teaching or receive the Sacraments from a false teacher; he will not, knowing him to be false, follow his false rites. And the Church herself does not err, for she is the truth, she is incapable of cunning or cowardice, for she is holy. And of course, the Church, by her very unchangeableness, does not acknowledge that to be error, which she has at any previous time acknowledged as truth; and having proclaimed by a General Council and common consent, that it is possible for any private individual, or any bishop or patriarch, to err in his teaching, she cannot acknowledge that such or such private individual, or bishop, or patriarch, or successor of theirs, is incapable of falling into error in teaching; or that they are preserved from going astray by any special grace. By what would the earth be sanctified, if the Church were to lose her sanctity? And where would there be truth, if her judgments of to-day were contrary to those of yesterday? Within the Church, that is to say, within her members, false doctrines may be engendered, but then the infected members fall away, constituting a heresy or schism, and no longer defile the sanctity of the Church.
“there is no ultimate juridical solution to collisions between spiritually gifted reformers and conscientious defenders of the accepted order.”
"Juridical" is certainly a concept, when applied to either the Church, God, or salvation, that is far more prevalent in the West than in the East (for a number of reasons, including cultural differences, history, and politics). Were the differences between the laity and hierarchy not so pronounced as it is in the West, the collision itself would not exist (to such a degree as it now might), and so no juridical solution would be required at all.
"The unity of the church will come about through the mutual growth of the hierarchy and the faithful as each does its part."
While each should do their part, the unity of the Church does not depend on this, nor indeed on us at all. Again, to quote Khomiakov:
THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH follows of necessity from the unity of God; for the Church is not a multitude of persons in their separate individuality, but a unity of the grace of God, living in a multitude of rational creatures, submitting themselves willingly to grace. Grace, indeed, is also given to those who resist it, and to those who do not make use of it (who hide their talent in the earth), but these are not in the Church. In fact, the unity of the Church is not imaginary or allegorical, but a true and substantial unity, such as is the unity of many members in a living body.
"the hierarchy sets the official teachings of the church, but the laity have the right to judge and reject false teachers."
I think that the Holy Spirit "sets the official teachings" of the Church. A primary responsibility of the hierarchy is to correctly teach the Word of Truth. Certainly the laity has not only the right, but the obligation, to reject false teachings. Clergy or laity, we are all, by virtue of our Baptisms, members of the Royal Priesthood.
“it seems evident that definitions, if they authentically correspond to the charism of the papal office, will find an echo in the faith of the church and will therefore evoke assent, at least eventually. If in a given instance the assent of the church were evidently not forthcoming, this could be interpreted as a signal that the pope had perhaps exceeded his competence and that some necessary condition for an infallible act had not been fulfilled.”
This seems like a somewhat circular line of reasoning, to me. Again, the West places far greater emphasis on things like "necessary conditions" than does the East — we just don't think along those lines. And, you know what the Orthodox view of the claim of papal Infallibility is! Our Lord Jesus Christ is the Head of the Universal Church, and only the Church herself is infallible, by her very nature. This also is connected to the differences between our understandings of meditation versus contemplation, created versus uncreated grace, etc.
|
|