Bruce Charlton raises an important objection to professedly Traditionalist Christianity in the contemporary world, “Traditionalist” here meaning a faith accepted on the authority of Tradition and its ecclesial representatives rather than accepted as the outcome of individual discernment. The objection is not that such a faith is undesirable but that it is impossible. People in the world today are exposed to multiple live religious options, and even when one picks a particular Church, one finds that it is divided into factions and that its leaders have more-or-less assimilated to the global liberal order and made authoritative proclamations which more-or-less directly contradict their historical teachings. One must choose which Church, which faction and clergy within that Church, which of conflicting Magisterial statements one should credit, and this can only be done by individual discernment.
This is a serious challenge. In the West, the greatest Magisterium is the Roman Catholic Church: indeed, 'the West' as a concept arises precisely from that part of the world that aligned with Rome rather than Constantinople many centuries ago. When the Western Roman Empire fell, 'the West' was defined by the Roman Catholic Church. So if you are a Westerner who wants to fall back on the authority of a Magisterial tradition, that church is the obvious place to look.
Yet if you do this, you will at once find that the Pope is thought not to be very Catholic by many Catholics. Tradition holds that the Pope can speak infallibly under certain very specific conditions; but if you see the Pope rejecting earlier parts of the tradition, don't you end up having to choose -- and thus, as the argument points out, substitute your own personal judgment for the Magisterium?
I've tended to fall back on St. Thomas Aquinas as an authority, but isn't that a personal judgment of mine? I'm not alone in it: Aquinas was greatly honored for centuries as the authoritative writer on many topics. Yet the Catechism today diverges from Aquinas in many ways big and small, as generations of priests who belong to other factions have amended it. The Jesuits are especially known for their divergence, but the Franciscans have a view that is in many ways different as well.
And if you think that the Roman Catholic view is not the right one, but prefer instead the Magisterium of the Greek Orthodox church -- or the Russian Orthodox variation -- you have an exactly similar problem. If you are a Protestant, the same. If you are a Southern Baptist, your church may have split over irreconcilable differences in your lifetime. The Presbyterians seem to be doing it even now, and the Methodists, and the Episcopalians.
Maybe you just can't lay down the sword of individual discernment. And if that's true, as it seems to be, we're just in a different world.
18 comments:
Athanasius might say it's been like that for a long time.
I disagree with this characterization of the Eastern churches.
I do not think the Eastern Orthodox have this problem to nearly the extent that the Western churches do. The Greek and Russian Orthodox are not at all a split in Orthodoxy and there is no need to choose between them. They are in full communion with each other, as are the other Eastern Orthodox Churches. We operate in something like a federalist system with a unified dogma across the Churches but with each Church free to put it into practice as makes the most sense in that community. So, the Russians and Greeks do things differently, but both agree to the same dogmas and they fully accept each other, including ordinations and sacraments. A member in one is free to participate in the sacraments of any of them. This is how we have operated from the very beginning.
I also don't believe our "leaders have more-or-less assimilated to the global liberal order." Our bishops and patriarchs come out of the monasteries and have a calling to be separate from the world. Although it's become customary for a monk who becomes a priest in his monastery to go to seminary, it is not required, and the formative years are in the monastery, not the university. He comes out of the monastery and goes back to it. He is judged as appropriate or not to become a bishop based on his monastic life.
We don't have the splitting problem of many Protestant churches because we don't believe in private interpretation that goes against the Church's interpretation. We don't have the problem of a Pope who may seem to go against our own traditions because no individual within Orthodoxy can speak infallibly. If my Patriarch takes a position I think is out of line or even heretical, I may be annoyed or outraged, but he's just one man, and all men are fallible. It doesn't move my faith because I'm not required to agree. It takes an ecumenical council to change anything. A majority of the bishops across all of the Eastern Orthodox churches would have to agree to it for a real challenge to emerge.
There are divisions, but they are minor compared to what I've seen in the Western churches. Dogmatic factions do happen, but until they can convince more than half the bishops across the Eastern Orthodox Churches as a whole to give them a hearing, they pose no great threat. The Russians insist on the Julian calendar and the Greeks insist on the Gregorian. It can be inconvenient, but it doesn't really challenge my faith. Occasionally two Churches will get cross with each other and break communion, but this does not typically last long and doesn't affect the laity much if at all.
That said, Charlton does specify "in The West," so I'm satisfied there. However, I don't think he's right about the rest. Now, before I commit the error I just deplored, I will say he's not talking to me and I'm not sure I understand his premise. If I get it wrong, let me know.
He says, "[Traditional Christians] talk and write that real Christianity is about humble obedience to the obvious and necessary truth of that external authority which is The Church.
"Meanwhile, all the time, top to bottom they are making personal subjective choices."
I don't think that having to make choices necessarily contradicts the belief. There is a good argument that we should recognize the subjectivity of such decisions, but that should simply result in humility and a striving to make better choices. I believe the Orthodox have it right, but I cannot PROVE it to you, and I respect that everyone else here has had to make the same choices and has chosen differently. Having struggled mightily through my own choices on these matters, I cannot do anything but respect the choices the rest of you have made. To throw it all out as dishonesty seems kinda dishonest.
At minimum, even in Orthodoxy, you are deciding between the Greek and the Russian versions. I don't follow it closely so I can't name the factions, but I would be quite surprised if there aren't just as many factions of Orthodoxy as there are of Catholicism.
I've always thought individual discernment was going to have to be part of the mix, but I'm wary of 100% individual discernment, which will lead only to to a kind of Hallmark movie secular ethics. Ethics are fine as far as they go--life will be better with them that without them--but you can say the same thing of dentistry and sound economic principles.
Why is that a meaningful decision here? The essential dogmas are the same. It is true that in my area there are 3 different Churches (Greek, Russian, and Antiochian) represented and that I did in fact have to pick one. But I just picked the one with the closest parish. I could have also picked based on how well the different service times fit my schedule, or whether I personally liked one priest better than the rest, or whether I enjoyed the style of singing better in one. It would not have mattered to my core beliefs or salvation. And, having joined one, I am welcome in all the others. The ordinations and sacraments are universally recognized within the Eastern Orthodox churches. So I picked one, but I could go to either of the other two and receive communion and fully participate in their services if I wished. So yes, we have to pick, but so what? How is that meaningful in this conversation?
It's quite like not being able to join two branches of the military at the same time. You have to pick one, but interservice rivalry aside, we're all on the same team and may end up working together on the same battlefield.
Even so, factions do develop. For example, in the 17th century, there was a split in the Russian Church over some liturgical changes; the Russian Patriarch was unforgiving in his treatment of disagreement and essentially excommunicated anyone who wouldn't go along with his changes. Whole communities left over this and over the centuries this grew to millions of believers. In the early 20th century the anathemas were lifted, the Russian Church apologized, and many of these communities have rejoined the Church, although it's an ongoing process. Some will probably never come back. This didn't affect most of the rest of the Orthodox world, though.
So, yes, it is possible an Orthodox believer will be caught in one of these controversies that require taking sides. But, they are not a common feature that we are always and everywhere struggling with. They are typically limited to a region and a period of time, not universal across the Orthodox Churches.
All that said, it occurs to me that I might not understand what you mean exactly by "factions". What do you mean exactly?
Another current controversy is about the Ukrainian Church. Since the current war w/ Russia started, it has wanted independence from the Russian Church. It's a real split there, and the Russian Patriarch has threatened to break communion with any other Church that recognizes Ukrainian autocephaly. What will happen? I don't know. But, again, this is limited geographically, and what is there in the split to challenge my faith? Orthodox Christians are fallible and it's clearly about the war. I don't like it; I don't agree with it; but how does it challenge my beliefs?
I agree with you. I think part of Charlton's point is that there is no way to escape it being 100% individual discernment because, according to him, all of the decisions involved are individual subjective choices. I disagree with him on that, but I agree that there is always some level of individual discernment. I don't think it takes us where he thinks it does, though.
What I mean is that you have to make an individual discernment decision about which theological approach is more plausible to you. This is most important when different parts of the church -- analogous to the Jesuits or the Franciscans -- have slightly to significantly different interpretations about what Jesus meant or how the Bible is to be read.
It is less important but still relevant in cases where outside politics are dividing the church: your example about the Russian/Ukrainian split being a good example. In a sense it's 'just' about the war; but in another sense, why should the war matter when considering eternity? Wars come and go. At one point in the Middle Ages there were three Popes, one true Pope and two anti-Popes. Which one is the right one to heed? Is it proper to make that decision based on human politics? Where do you place your loyalty and obedience when one says X and the other says not-X? That's ultimately a decision that you are making, not a simple submission to authority but a decision you make about which authority to whom to submit.
That’s been my understanding as well, Texan. I’ve visited congregations that officially belong to the same denomination, and have found their interpretations of parts of Scripture to be rather different. It is less obvious in the Roman Catholic tradition, although my last experience with that was in Austria in 2009, and things have changed “a wee bit” in the church leadership since then.
I’d say I lean toward 20% personal discernment and 80% tradition, but I am also considered a heretic by pretty much every denomination, so … :)
LittleRed1
I don't see the two approaches as necessarily in conflict, so I don't immediately see what you are saying with the Greek vs Russian example. That said, I have also not looked deeply into them, so maybe I should.
Even so, I think you have the decision backwards for most Orthodox: I chose which branch to join w/o looking at that difference in interpretation, and I simply follow my branch's way of doing things. I think that's typical, especially when many Orthodox are born into their branch. As long as the Churches are in full communion with each other, what do I care if other branches do it differently?
One difference I think we're dancing around is that the intellectual, and especially the individual intellect, is just not as important in the East as the West. Yes, intellect is important, but it's only one of the tools in the toolbox. The Orthodox are happier than anyone else I've run into to just say, "We don't know."
E.g., if you ask how the elements of communion can be both bread and wine and the real body and blood of Christ, the Catholics have a good, logical explanation in Transubstantiation. The Orthodox say, "We don't know, but the Bible is clear that that's the case and it's what we've believed from the beginning, so we believe it."
Also, we can just choose to obey. This is very much like an army. You may completely disagree with your commander, but do you desert your unit? The Great Commission is not to sort out logical explications of everything. It's to save the world. If I'm spending time splitting hairs with the bishop, I'm probably failing to do something more important to bring souls to Christ or to keep them in Christ.
Along those lines, with the Old Believer split, from the information I have, it was not that some individuals disagreed with the liturgical changes and refused to follow them. It was entire communities together that refused and were anathematized. The laity obeyed their leaders; they didn't strike out on their own and make their own judgements about the changes. And, of course, the leaders bear the responsibility before God if they lead their flocks astray.
I don't have any good information about how this has played out in the Ukraine / Russia split, so I can't speak to that specifically. However, generally, in terms of what's possible, you could just go with your bishop, which is reasonable I think. Obedience is a choice.
Man! I keep thinking of things, but Holy Saturday is here and I have an early liturgy coming up.
Quick notes:
This is most important when different parts of the church -- analogous to the Jesuits or the Franciscans -- have slightly to significantly different interpretations about what Jesus meant or how the Bible is to be read.
We don't have that within a branch that I'm aware of, so we don't face the difficulty. I just follow my branch's way of doing things and I'm good. We are good at minding our own business. The branches have to keep things close enough to maintain communion (basically, follow the rulings of the ecumenical councils), so no branch gets TOO far out. I just don't think this is a problem for us.
Second, I have been talking from a lay viewpoint. I can just choose to obey, full stop. But, you may have a better argument if you focus on leadership. Certainly a bishop faces a lot of decisions a layman doesn't. At that level, you might have a stronger argument.
The conversation has taken on the aspect of talking past each other. For my part, I feel like I don't understand your position. I'm not sure what you mean by 'faction.' Although I recognize the Jesuits, etc., as Catholic orders, I don't really understand how all that works. Although I understand that, yes, I must make some personal decisions, I don't understand why you see those decisions as challenges.
Where the Magisterium is silent, isn't it allowable to make personal decisions? Isn't an allowance for personal decisions then part of the Magisterium?
Anyway, I'm happy to continue talking about this, but if you're ready to leave it, let's leave it.
Let's do. I think I if I succeeded in explaining the issue to you, it would ruin part of the evident pleasure you are taking in your practice. That would be wrong of me.
"It is best for man to be middle-wise,
Not over cunning and clever:
The learned man whose lore is deep
Is seldom happy at heart."
-Havamal 54
From the Roman Catholic position, isn't the very fact that the Pope is limited in infallibility to only when he's speaking under very proscribed circumstances indicative of a theology that admits that individual discernment is part of the mix? I mean, we don't even hold that canon is infallible, and have modified it many times.
Yes, certainly. However, by the same token it admits of the Magisterium's absolute authority under those certain circumstances. The problem here is that the Magisterium ends up having no authority at all unless (and only insofar as) you accept it through individual discernment.
Well, the good Lord himself gave us free will, choice. He asked us to love him and honor him, and did not force us to (other than by threat of consequences known in advance). If it's good enough for the Lord God himself that we have discernment- choice, then it should be plenty good enough for the Church. The prophets almost universally struggled with and bargained with God, why should the church be immune to such debate?
Post a Comment